On August 22, 2025, a quiet stretch of downtown Washington, D.C., was suddenly thrust into the national spotlight as FBI agents arrived at the office of John Bolton, the former national security adviser to President Donald Trump. According to court records and multiple media reports, the agents were there to execute a search warrant as part of an ongoing Justice Department investigation into Bolton’s handling of classified documents. That same morning, agents also searched Bolton’s home in Bethesda, Maryland, making it a day of high drama for the veteran diplomat and policy adviser whose career has spanned several presidential administrations.
The details, revealed in newly unsealed court documents and reported by outlets including CNN, Politico, and TNND, paint a complex picture of what federal investigators found and why they were searching in the first place. During the search of Bolton’s Washington office, agents seized a trove of documents labeled “confidential,” “secret,” and “classified”—terms that, while familiar to the public, have very specific meanings within the federal government’s hierarchy of national security information. On the scale, “confidential” documents are seen as the least damaging if disclosed, while “secret” and “top secret” carry progressively more serious implications for national security. The inventory list filed by the FBI included confidential documents about weapons of mass destruction, strategic communications, and the U.S. mission to the United Nations, as well as a travel memo labeled “secret.” Another set of confidential documents had its heading redacted from the public inventory, keeping some details under wraps even now.
Bolton’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, was quick to respond to the news of the search and the nature of the documents seized. In a statement reported by Politico and TNND, Lowell emphasized that “these materials, many of which are documents that had been previously approved as part of a pre-publication review for Amb. Bolton’s book, were reviewed and closed years ago.” He added, “These are the kinds of ordinary records, many of which are 20 years old or more, that would be kept by a 40-year career official who served at the State Department, as an Assistant Attorney General, the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, and the National Security Advisor. Specifically, the documents with classification markings from the period 1998-2006 date back to Amb. Bolton’s time in the George W. Bush Administration.” Lowell insisted that “an objective and thorough review will show nothing inappropriate was stored or kept by Amb. Bolton.”
But the Justice Department sees things differently, at least for now. According to the court records, the investigation into Bolton is focused on possible violations of three statutes, including the Espionage Act and laws prohibiting the unauthorized retention of classified information. The FBI’s search warrant applications, as reported by Politico, specifically cite the gathering, transmitting, or losing of national defense information as potential crimes under review. The broader context, of course, is the recent high-profile cases involving classified documents and former officials—cases that have ensnared politicians on both sides of the aisle, from Donald Trump to Joe Biden.
The inventory of what the FBI seized from Bolton’s office is striking in its detail. According to CNN, agents found a binder about a State Department security briefing for the 2000-2001 administration transition, documents about a communications plan, and confidential materials related to the U.S. Mission to the United Nations, travel, and weapons of mass destruction. In addition to paper records, the FBI removed four computers and a USB flash drive from the office. The search of Bolton’s Maryland home yielded several phones, computers, drives, and a binder labeled “statements and reflections to allied strikes,” along with folders of documents labeled “Trump I-IV.” However, the inventory from the home search did not indicate that classified information was found there.
Why did the FBI believe they would find such sensitive material? According to court filings and coverage by CNN, part of the reasoning stemmed from Bolton’s interactions with a federal classification expert during the editing of his 2020 memoir, The Room Where It Happened. The original manuscript contained classified details, and federal officials had warned Bolton at the time. Although the Justice Department under the Biden administration dropped its earlier probe without filing charges, the issue resurfaced as investigators received new information—including evidence that Bolton’s AOL email account had been hacked by a foreign adversary, possibly China, Russia, or Iran. U.S. intelligence officials believe some of Bolton’s emails may have been intercepted, adding another layer of urgency to the investigation.
The age and origin of the documents are central to Bolton’s defense. Both his attorney and sources familiar with his office have said that the records predate his time in the Trump administration, instead stretching back to his service during the George W. Bush administration and earlier. As one person told CNN on condition of anonymity, the documents “may have been 20 years old or older,” possibly even declassified over time—a point the FBI’s inventory does not clarify. Indeed, the inventory does not specify whether any of the documents were marked “declassified,” leaving open the question of their current status. Typically, government documents that are no longer sensitive are explicitly labeled as such, but in Bolton’s case, no such markings were listed.
The legal and political backdrop to the search is impossible to ignore. Bolton has long been a controversial figure in Washington, known for his hawkish foreign policy views and willingness to speak out against former allies. His relationship with Donald Trump, in particular, soured dramatically after Bolton published his memoir, which painted the former president as “image-obsessed” and “unfit” for office. Trump, in turn, has publicly derided Bolton as a “warmonger.” Some of Bolton’s defenders have suggested that the FBI’s searches could be seen as politically motivated, given Trump’s calls for retribution against his critics. Yet, as Politico notes, the investigation is being handled by career Justice Department officials and overseen by U.S. Magistrate Judge Moxila Upadhyaya—the same judge who presided over Trump’s own arraignment in a separate classified documents case.
The search of Bolton’s office and home also comes amid a broader national reckoning over how classified materials are handled by senior officials. The federal government has prosecuted individuals in the past for knowingly retaining classified information outside secure channels, and the law applies regardless of political affiliation. In recent years, both Trump and Biden have faced their own legal scrutiny over the handling of sensitive documents, with mixed results. In Trump’s case, a federal judge eventually dismissed the classified documents case against him, while special counsel Robert Hur concluded that a jury would be unlikely to convict Biden for similar offenses.
For now, the Justice Department’s investigation into John Bolton remains ongoing, with no charges filed as of yet. The story has raised important questions about the balance between transparency, national security, and the rights of former officials to retain records from their long government careers. As more details emerge, the public will be watching closely to see whether the case signals a new era of accountability—or just another chapter in Washington’s long-running battles over secrecy and power.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the handling of classified information remains a deeply contentious and consequential issue at the highest levels of American government, with implications that reach far beyond any single official or administration.
