Donald Trump’s Justice Department has filed a third criminal case against former FBI director James Comey, accusing him of arranging the disclosure of national defence information to a journalist in October 2016.
The two-count filing, made in Washington, D.C., on 5 October 2026, was unsealed on Monday, 26 October, at Comey’s request. Comey denies wrongdoing and has moved to have the case dismissed.
What makes this prosecution particularly unusual is not simply that it is the third case brought against a prominent critic of the president. Prosecutors filed a criminal information without first obtaining a grand-jury indictment, and the legality of that approach is now in dispute.
What are the new allegations?
The court filing accuses Comey of unauthorised transmission of national defence information and conspiracy to transmit such information. Prosecutors allege he directed the disclosure of sensitive material to a reporter through one or more other people while serving as FBI director in October 2016.
The allegations concern conduct roughly ten years before the new filing. According to The Washington Post, prosecutors say Comey directed staff to speak to a New York Times reporter about US email surveillance.
The publicly described charging document provides limited information about what was shared, with whom, and through which individuals. It is not proof that Comey disclosed information unlawfully. The prosecution will have to establish the relevant facts and legal elements if the case proceeds.
Why has Comey not been indicted by a grand jury?
Federal felony prosecutions normally proceed through an indictment approved by a grand jury unless the accused waives that requirement. In this case the Justice Department used a document called a criminal information instead.
The department has described its approach as a waiverless criminal information, which it says is a recognised method of stopping the ten-year statute-of-limitations clock while prosecutors seek to move a case forward. That is the government’s legal position, not a judicial determination that the approach is valid here.
Comey’s lawyers dispute the procedure and argue that the time limit for prosecution has expired. They have asked the court to dismiss the case. The procedural question matters because the alleged disclosure dates to October 2016, and the filing was made almost exactly ten years later.
It would therefore be misleading to say that a grand jury has already found grounds to indict Comey in this new case. At the time these proceedings became public, no such indictment had been reported.
Comey rejects the accusations
Comey responded publicly after the court documents were unsealed, saying he remained innocent and describing the renewed proceedings as an abuse of the Justice Department. His lawyers are contesting the validity of the case rather than accepting the alleged wrongdoing.
President Trump dismissed Comey as FBI director in May 2017, during an FBI investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. The two men have been longstanding public adversaries.
Comey and his supporters argue the administration is using criminal investigations against a political opponent. The Justice Department has defended its enforcement approach and previously said that no one is above the law. Political retaliation is an allegation, not an established finding in this latest case.
How does this fit with Comey’s earlier cases?
- September 2025: Comey was indicted in Virginia over allegations connected with congressional testimony in 2020. He denied the charges.
- November 2025: A federal judge dismissed that case after finding the prosecutor who brought it had been unlawfully appointed. The dismissal did not amount to a finding that Comey had committed the alleged offences.
- April 2026: A grand jury in North Carolina indicted Comey over an Instagram photograph showing seashells arranged to read “86 47”. Prosecutors alleged it amounted to a threat against Trump. Comey disputes the allegations and the case has continued separately.
- October 2026: The Justice Department filed the new Washington case concerning an alleged 2016 disclosure of national defence information. The legality of its charging procedure is being challenged.
The first two prosecutions should not be confused with the newly unsealed Washington filing. They concern different alleged conduct and different legal questions.
Another Comey family court ruling on the same day
In a separate case on 26 October, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully dismissed former federal prosecutor Maurene Comey, James Comey’s daughter, from her post. She had argued that the decision was connected to her father and political considerations.
That ruling concerned the legality of her dismissal. It does not, by itself, establish that the new charges against her father were brought in retaliation. The Justice Department has indicated it disagrees with the ruling about her employment.
What happens next?
The court must consider Comey’s application to dismiss, including the dispute over the limitation period and the use of a criminal information without a grand-jury indictment. It is not yet clear whether the government will seek an indictment or whether the latest case will survive those challenges.
At present, Comey has not been convicted of any offence in these proceedings, and the new allegations remain unproven.
Watch: MSNBC’s coverage of the latest Comey charges
MS NOW’s Deadline: White House discussed the newly unsealed filing on 26 October. The panel’s commentary includes opinions about the Justice Department’s motives; these should be distinguished from the facts established by the court record.
Sources and further reading
- Court filing: criminal information dated 5 October 2026 (CourtListener mirror)
- Associated Press: new Washington prosecution and disputed charging procedure
- Reuters: new federal case and Comey’s response
- US Justice Department: April 2026 North Carolina indictment
- Associated Press via PBS: November 2025 dismissal
- Associated Press: Maurene Comey employment ruling, 26 October 2026
