John Bolton, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump and now one of his most outspoken critics, is facing the real prospect of a federal indictment, with charges expected to be filed as early as this week. According to multiple reports and federal officials cited by Anadolu Agency and MSNBC, the U.S. attorney’s office in Maryland is preparing to bring charges against Bolton for allegedly mishandling classified information, a move that would make him the third prominent Trump critic to be indicted in just the past month.
The developments come after an August raid by the FBI on Bolton’s home in Maryland and his office in Washington, D.C. The search, as reported by NBC News, formed part of a national security investigation into the potential mishandling of classified records. According to recently released search warrant affidavits, the investigation is probing possible violations of the Espionage Act, including unauthorized possession and sharing of national defense information. The stakes, both legal and political, couldn’t be higher.
Bolton’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, has pushed back strongly against the allegations, insisting that the former adviser handled all records properly. Lowell points out that many of the documents in question were cleared years ago through a pre-publication review process for Bolton’s bestselling memoir, The Room Where It Happened. “Such documents, some over 20 years old, are typical for a longtime official with Bolton’s career history,” Lowell told NBC News, emphasizing that Bolton followed established procedures for reviewing and clearing sensitive material.
Bolton’s departure from the Trump administration was anything but amicable. After leaving his post, he became a vocal critic of the president, culminating in the publication of his memoir in 2020. The book painted a damning portrait of Trump’s foreign policy and decision-making, prompting the president to lash out publicly. In a June 2020 interview with Fox News, Trump declared, “He released massive amounts of classified, and confidential, but classified information. That’s illegal and you go to jail for that.” Bolton, for his part, has consistently maintained that he secured all necessary clearances for the material in his book.
Now, as the Justice Department prepares to unveil charges, the case against Bolton is drawing intense scrutiny—not just for its legal merits, but for its broader political implications. Former federal prosecutor Glenn Kirschner, speaking to Raw Story on Sunday, suggested that the Trump administration’s own actions may have inadvertently handed Bolton a powerful legal defense. “Prosecutors may have concluded—we’re talking in a vacuum here because we haven’t seen the evidence yet—may have concluded, ‘No, we’re not going to prosecute Bolton,’” Kirschner explained. “Then, when Trump says, ‘Yes, you are, evidence be damned...You’re prosecuting him,’ that will still give John Bolton a vindictive prosecution defense.”
Kirschner elaborated that such a defense, while perhaps not as robust as those available to others, would still be on the table for Bolton—especially given reports that federal prosecutors had previously decided against charging him. “It may not be nearly as robust or compelling a vindictive prosecution defense as James Comey has or Letitia James has, but it will still be an available defense, particularly because the reporting is that federal prosecutors previously decided they were not going to charge him,” Kirschner continued.
The context is crucial: Bolton is not the only high-profile Trump critic to find himself in legal crosshairs. In late September and early October, former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James were also indicted. Comey faces two charges—obstruction of justice and lying to Congress—while James is accused of mortgage fraud. Both have vigorously denied the allegations. According to Raw Story, Comey’s lawyers have already signaled their intention to seek dismissal of the charges, citing Trump’s own statements as evidence of “vindictive and selective prosecution.”
The pattern is hard to ignore. Critics of Trump, as reported by Anadolu Agency and Raw Story, argue that these indictments represent a weaponization of the Justice Department, aimed squarely at silencing or punishing the president’s adversaries. Trump’s history of publicly vowing to “go after” his political enemies is well documented, and his calls for Bolton’s prosecution date back to the immediate aftermath of the memoir’s release.
A Justice Department spokesman, responding to media inquiries, offered only a carefully worded statement: “As a matter of law, we will not discuss any grand jury matters with the media, but this Justice Department is united as one team in our mission to make America safe again.” The department’s insistence on unity and mission belies the deep divisions and suspicions now swirling around the case.
Bolton’s legal team is expected to mount a vigorous defense, focusing not only on the substance of the classified materials allegations but also on the broader context of political pressure and selective prosecution. The fact that many of the documents in question were cleared years ago, and that Bolton’s actions followed established protocols for officials of his rank, will likely form the backbone of his response.
Yet, the legal nuances of the case are only one part of the story. The indictments of Bolton, Comey, and James have reignited a fierce debate about the independence of the Justice Department and the boundaries of presidential power. Supporters of Trump argue that the charges reflect legitimate concerns about the mishandling of sensitive information and potential criminal conduct by officials who should know better. They point to the seriousness of Espionage Act violations and the need to safeguard national security, regardless of political affiliation.
On the other hand, critics see a dangerous precedent, where the machinery of justice is wielded as a tool for retribution. They note the timing of the indictments, the public statements made by Trump, and the pattern of targeting vocal opponents. For them, the charges against Bolton are not just about the law—they’re about the future of American democracy and the principle that no one, not even the president, should be able to direct prosecutions for personal or political gain.
As the legal process unfolds, all eyes will be on Maryland, where the U.S. attorney’s office is expected to take the next steps. The outcome could have far-reaching implications—not only for Bolton, but for the broader landscape of American politics and the rule of law. With the specter of vindictive prosecution looming, and with both sides preparing for a high-stakes courtroom battle, the nation is left to grapple with thorny questions about justice, accountability, and the limits of presidential power.
For now, Bolton remains defiant, his legal team ready to challenge the charges and the motivations behind them. Whether the courts will agree remains to be seen, but one thing is certain: the coming weeks will be anything but quiet in the halls of American justice.
