On October 17, 2025, the political and legal landscape in Washington was set ablaze as John Bolton, the former U.S. national security adviser and longtime Republican foreign policy figure, pleaded not guilty to 18 counts of unlawful possession and misuse of classified information related to national defense. The indictment, filed just a day prior by seasoned prosecutors from the Maryland State Attorney’s Office and the Department of Justice, has stirred a hornet’s nest of debate over selective prosecution, political retribution, and the longstanding challenges of handling sensitive information at the highest levels of government.
Bolton, 76, is no stranger to controversy. He served in the Trump administration from 2018 to 2019 before being fired and emerging as one of the former president’s most outspoken critics. According to Reuters, the current charges stem from an investigation that began in 2022—well before Donald Trump’s return to the White House. This timing is significant, as it suggests the case was not initially a product of the current administration’s political maneuvering, a point echoed by multiple sources and legal experts.
The heart of the indictment lies in Bolton’s so-called “diaries.” Prosecutors allege that he shared more than 1,000 pages of notes containing confidential information—gleaned from intelligence briefings, meetings with foreign leaders, and other sensitive discussions—with his wife and daughter via unclassified email and messaging apps. The situation took a darker turn when agents believed to be linked to the Iranian government hacked one of Bolton’s email accounts, exposing some of this material. As Associated Press reported, the Department of Justice further alleges that Bolton stored highly classified intelligence at his home, including details about a foreign enemy’s plans to attack American forces abroad, covert U.S. operations, and other state secrets.
In announcing the indictment, U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi stated, “Anyone who abuses their official position and endangers our national security will be held accountable. No one is above the law. Justice is the same for all Americans.” These words, while resolute, have done little to quell the political storm swirling around the case.
Bolton’s defense has been swift and uncompromising. His attorney, Abby Lowell, asserted that the notes in question “were not classified and were shared only with Bolton’s closest relatives.” Lowell emphasized that Bolton had continued writing his 2020 memoir, The Room Where It Happened, after a National Security Council official confirmed the manuscript no longer contained classified information. The book, published in June 2020, was a scathing critique of Trump’s leadership, painting the former president as “incompetent” and deeply ignorant of foreign policy matters, according to Agence France-Presse.
Legal experts note that Bolton has several avenues for defense. Like former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James—both of whom have faced their own indictments under the Trump administration—Bolton could argue judicial arbitrariness or vindictive prosecution. The argument would hinge on whether he was being singled out for conduct that others in similar positions have not been prosecuted for, or if he was targeted in retaliation for exercising his legal rights or for his public criticism of Trump. “This indictment is significantly more comprehensive than those extremely sparse indictments,” commented Benjamin Clubbs, a Washington attorney and former prosecutor, as quoted by Reuters.
MSNBC’s Morning Joe provided a lively forum for parsing the case’s nuances. Justice and intelligence correspondent Ken Dilanian explained, “The indictment says that Bolton used language that made clear he knew he was talking about sensitive information. Things like, ‘The intel briefer said,’ or ‘when in the Situation Room, I learned.’” Dilanian also highlighted the unusual prosecutorial path: the Biden administration had considered the case but opted not to pursue it, partly out of concern that doing so would reveal a U.S. intelligence penetration of Iran. The Trump administration, however, made a different calculation, choosing to proceed even at the cost of exposing intelligence sources and methods.
The question of selective prosecution looms large. Co-host Jonathan Lemire remarked, “It’s about selective prosecution. It’s the idea, like, this is something that a lot of people in Washington who have high-level jobs, access to classified information have to deal with. But yet it’s just Bolton, a Trump critic, who’s the one facing, potentially now, criminal charges.” This sentiment was echoed by Financial Times editor Edward Luce, who pointed to Washington’s “over-classification problem,” arguing that an excess of classified material gives “a vengeful actor, like President Trump, enormous scope to just pick and choose who to take revenge on.”
Yet, the prosecution insists there’s more “there, there” in Bolton’s case than in those against Comey and James. As Dilanian explained, “This one has gone through normal channels as we understand it… And when you look at the descriptions in the indictment, it’s pretty clear that some of it probably did [contain national defense information].” Still, the debate continues over where to draw the line for officials who write memoirs. Many, like Bolton, keep diaries with an eye toward future books, and the process of publication often involves rigorous review to excise classified material. But as Dilanian noted, “Those people don’t get prosecuted for doing that.”
Bolton’s situation is further complicated by the fact that the FBI has reportedly been aware of his diary-keeping and email practices for some time. The real turning point appears to have been the discovery that Iranian agents had accessed some of the material, a revelation that tipped the scales in favor of prosecution under Trump’s Justice Department.
The political undertones are impossible to ignore. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius observed, “Two things can be true at once. This is part of Trump’s pattern of revenge against enemies. In that way, it’s like the cases against James Comey and Letitia James that were brought. But it’s different in the sense that… there are tough questions of law.” Eugene Robinson, also on Morning Joe, pointed out, “John Bolton has never been confused with a Democrat, right? I mean, no one would call him a Democrat. He’s not. He never has been.”
As Bolton’s legal battle unfolds, the case has become a flashpoint for broader questions: Is the U.S. government’s classification system fit for purpose, or does it merely enable political score-settling? Are high-profile prosecutions like this one a necessary safeguard for national security, or a troubling sign of creeping authoritarianism? With the possibility of a life sentence hanging over Bolton’s head if convicted on all counts, the stakes—for him and for the country—could hardly be higher.
For now, all eyes are on the Maryland courtroom, where Bolton’s fate—and perhaps the future of official memoir-writing in Washington—will be decided.