The Justice Department announced on Monday that former FBI director James Comey is again under federal prosecution, this time for allegedly directing a subordinate to share classified national‑defense information with a New York Times reporter in October 2016. The filing, a “criminal information,” arrives just before the ten‑year statute of limitations expires and marks the third criminal proceeding the Trump administration has brought against Comey since the president returned to the White House in January 2025.
According to unsealed court documents, the incident in question stems from a New York Times story about a secret surveillance order that compelled Yahoo to scan its users’ emails for links to a foreign terrorist organization. Prosecutors allege that Comey, dissatisfied with a Reuters correction published the day before, instructed a staff member to contact the Times journalist and set the record straight. The Justice Department contends that the outreach resulted in the illegal transfer of classified material to an unauthorized person, thereby violating the Espionage Act.
The allegations are not new to the federal investigative apparatus. A first review began in 2017, and Special Counsel John Durham recommended in December 2018 that no criminal charges be pursued. A second probe, dubbed “Tropical Vortex,” was launched in 2019 but was closed without indictment in February 2020. Comey’s legal team has repeatedly pointed to those findings, arguing that the government has already concluded there is insufficient evidence to prosecute.
Comey’s attorney, former prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald, emphasized the prior determinations in a recent filing. “Both times the Government determined that no charges should be brought against anyone,” he told the court. Fitzgerald also challenged the legal basis of the new filing, asserting that federal law requires an indictment within ten years of the alleged offense, and that a criminal information does not satisfy that requirement. The defense has asked a judge to dismiss the case outright, and a ruling is still pending.
The procedural choice to use a criminal information, rather than a grand‑jury indictment, is itself a point of contention. Unlike an indictment, a criminal information can be filed by prosecutors without a grand jury or a judge’s prior approval, effectively allowing the government to sidestep the traditional evidentiary review. The Justice Department argues that the filing extends the statute of limitations, preserving its ability to bring charges before the deadline lapses. Critics, including Comey’s counsel, maintain that this interpretation runs contrary to established precedent and amounts to a legal maneuver to keep the case alive.
In a video posted to his Substack platform, Comey condemned the move as “an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice.” He added, “It would almost be funny if it weren’t such an appalling abuse… I’m still innocent. I’m still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.” His remarks echo a pattern of defiance that has characterized his public response to the Trump administration’s repeated legal attacks.
The latest charge follows two earlier criminal actions against Comey. In September 2025, prosecutors accused him of making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding, but a federal judge dismissed the case after finding the Trump‑appointed prosecutor had been unlawfully appointed. In April 2026, Comey was indicted over an Instagram photograph that displayed seashells arranged to read “86 47,” which the Justice Department interpreted as a threat against then‑president Trump, who would be the 47th holder of the office. Comey denied any threatening intent and sought dismissal of that case as well.
The underlying political feud traces back to Comey’s tenure as FBI director, a role he assumed in 2013 under President Barack Obama. Relations with Donald Trump soured quickly after the latter took office in 2017, culminating in Comey’s dismissal in May 2017 amid the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Although the subsequent Mueller investigation confirmed Russian meddling, it did not establish sufficient evidence of criminal collusion between the Trump campaign and Moscow. Since then, Trump has repeatedly accused Comey of treason, while Comey has likened the former president to a mafia boss in his 2018 memoir.
Legal experts note that the current filing could test the limits of the Justice Department’s authority to revive old investigations after multiple prior closures. If the judge denies the defense’s motion to dismiss, the case could proceed to trial, forcing a jury to consider whether a directive to a staff member constitutes a “willful” disclosure of classified material. The outcome may also set a precedent for how the government uses criminal informations to bypass grand‑jury oversight in high‑profile political cases.
For now, the courtroom remains the arena where the dispute will be settled. The judge’s pending decision on the dismissal motion will determine whether the third criminal case against James Comey moves forward or ends before it can reach a trial. Both sides appear ready for a protracted legal battle, with the broader political context ensuring continued public attention.
