Joe diGenova, the 81-year-old prosecutor leading a Trump-related investigation in Florida, resigned without securing any charges, while a federal appeals court blocked grand jury subpoenas targeting New York Attorney General Letitia James’ records, citing legal irregularities in the process.
Joe diGenova, a veteran prosecutor and Trump loyalist, resigned from the Justice Department after heading a probe into the former president’s political adversaries, leaving the investigation without any prosecutions. The move came amid internal doubts about the probe’s effectiveness, with officials citing concerns over its pace and legal hurdles. DiGenova, who replaced career prosecutor Maria Medetis Long, who had objected to advancing an investigation into former CIA Director John Brennan, faced criticism for the lack of results despite a decade-long inquiry into Trump’s 2016 election activities.
Resignation of Prosecutor in Trump Probe
DiGenova’s departure followed a decision by Justice Department leadership to reassess the investigation’s direction. A source familiar with the matter told NBC News that officials had lost confidence in his ability to manage the probe, which had stalled despite a team of Washington-based attorneys being deployed. The investigation, which stretched back to the 2016 election, faced challenges due to the statute of limitations on many federal crimes, complicating efforts to pursue charges. The probe reached back a decade, revisiting a Justice Department inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. That posed a major hurdle for the investigation, given that the activity took place nearly a decade ago, far outside the typical five-year statute of limitations for most federal crimes.
Prosecutor who led ‘grand conspiracy’ probe of Trump targets
DiGenova, who had been appointed in April by then-Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, was part of a group that attempted to overturn the 2020 election results. His team included figures like Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell, who were involved in Trump’s legal battles. The probe, based in the Southern District of Florida, was overseen by a Trump-appointed U.S. attorney and a judge known for rulings favorable to the former president. The Southern District of Florida’s U.S. attorney is Jason A. Reding Quiñones, and the grand jury in the case is run by U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon, a Trump-friendly judge.
It was an honor and a privilege to serve the president and the department,
diGenova said in a statement, declining to elaborate on his resignation. The Justice Department did not comment, and no replacement has been named for his role. The investigation’s future remains uncertain, with officials aiming to reorient it under new leadership. The Justice Department is seeking testimony from multiple former officials before a federal grand jury, people familiar with the probe told NBC News. The Associated Press first reported the subpoena activity.
Legal Hurdles in Grand Jury Subpoenas
A separate legal setback emerged as a federal appeals court ruled that John A. Sarcone III, the acting U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of New York, lacked authority to issue grand jury subpoenas demanding records from New York Attorney General Letitia James’ office. The Second Circuit upheld a lower court’s decision to quash the subpoenas, which sought documents related to James’ civil fraud case against Trump and her investigation of the National Rifle Association. The court found that Sarcone’s appointment as acting U.S. Attorney was invalid under the Federal Vacancies Reform Act. He had been serving as First Assistant U.S. Attorney after his 120-day interim term expired, but the appeals judges ruled that only someone already in the acting role when a vacancy occurred could assume the position.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump Probe Blow
The subpoenas, served on James’ office in August 2025, demanded any and all documents
and communications relating to the attorney general’s cases involving Trump and the NRA. James’ office fought back, accusing federal prosecutors of issuing the subpoenas in retaliation and with the intent to harass her and her office. Her lawyers also argued the demands were overbroad, burdensome, sought privileged information and intruded on New York’s sovereignty. However, the appeals court did not rule on whether the retaliation allegations were true. Instead, the judges concluded Sarcone simply lacked the legal authority to obtain the subpoenas in the first place.
The court concluded the sweeping delegation effectively made Sarcone Acting U.S. Attorney in all but name
and amounted to an unlawful circumvention of federal vacancies law. The clash strikes at the heart of James’ years-long legal war with Trump. James brought the blockbuster civil fraud lawsuit accusing Trump and his business of falsely inflating the value of assets while seeking favorable terms from lenders. Trump has repeatedly denied wrongdoing and attacked James and the case. The now-quashed subpoenas sought documents and communications connected to that Trump case as well as James’ separate investigation of the NRA. A lower court previously threw out the subpoenas and barred Sarcone from further involvement in the investigations that prompted them. The Second Circuit has now affirmed both decisions.
Implications for Trump’s Legal Battles
The two developments underscore the legal challenges facing Trump and his allies. DiGenova’s resignation highlights the difficulties of pursuing investigations into the former president, while the court’s ruling on the subpoenas limits the reach of federal prosecutors in state-level cases. Both events reflect the complex interplay of legal procedures, political appointments, and judicial oversight in Trump’s ongoing legal struggles.
For now, the Justice Department’s probe into Trump’s 2016 election activities remains in limbo, and federal prosecutors face renewed scrutiny over their methods. The outcome of these cases could shape the broader landscape of legal accountability for high-profile figures, with implications for future investigations and judicial rulings.
