A federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit filed by former CIA Director John Brennan against Donald Trump and other senior administration officials, ruling that Brennan's stated concern over potentially losing access to evidence for a future criminal defence rested on grounds too speculative to sustain the claim.

Judge Jia Cobb, a Biden appointee sitting on a federal district court, issued the ruling on Thursday, finding that Brennan lacked the legal standing necessary to pursue the case. The court found no demonstration in his filing that government records tied to a possible future defence were at risk of being destroyed.

The lawsuit, filed in July, sought a court order directing the government to preserve records Brennan believed might serve as evidence in his defence if he were ever prosecuted on political or retaliatory grounds. No formal charges have been brought against the former CIA director, though two separate federal investigations list him as a target.

One probe is examining whether former intelligence officials acted in concert to infringe upon the civil rights of Trump, centred on scrutiny of reported ties between his 2016 presidential campaign and Russia. Investigators are also examining whether Brennan gave false testimony before Congress in 2023, with that inquiry focused on what he told lawmakers about the Steele dossier and the role it played in a 2017 intelligence assessment examining Russian interference in the election.

Brennan contended that the materials at issue might no longer be available by the time he sought to introduce them as evidence. Among the items flagged in the filing were removed posts from social media accounts, messages exchanged through apps designed to erase content automatically, and various other digital communications that the filing argued could prove relevant to the proceedings. Defence lawyers additionally raised questions about the way the Justice Department conducted its investigations, citing staff turnover and what they described as procedural irregularities in the process.

Cobb's written ruling held that Brennan's constitutional harm had not yet materialised, because the scenario depended on a sequential chain of contingent events — among them the possible deletion of records — each of which would need to occur before any injury could take legal form. The judge further observed that Brennan's potential harm hinged on a future indictment, an outcome that would first require a grand jury to act. No demonstration had been made by Brennan that an indictment was a certainty, nor that prosecutors were genuinely neglecting to retain records pertinent to a potential defence.

Trump has on multiple occasions characterised Brennan and certain other former intelligence officials as participants in what he describes as a fabricated narrative around Russian collusion. Those officials have disputed that characterisation, maintaining that the intelligence community's conclusions on Russian interference were grounded in legitimate findings.

Lawyers for Brennan told the court that their broader claims about the investigations remained unaddressed by the decision. His legal team indicated that Brennan would continue disputing what they described as investigations lacking substantive basis, and that he remained prepared to oppose any effort to use the criminal justice system for political purposes.