On September 25, 2025, in a move that sent shockwaves through Washington, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on two counts—making false statements and obstruction of justice—by the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of Virginia. According to The New York Times and multiple U.S. media reports, this action marks a dramatic escalation in President Donald Trump’s campaign to pursue legal action against his political adversaries, a campaign that has only intensified since his return to the White House earlier this year.
The indictment, just two pages long, alleges that Comey lied to Congress in 2020 about whether he had authorized anyone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source for news stories. Specifically, prosecutors claim Comey denied ever permitting such leaks, when in fact, he had allegedly instructed a bureau employee—referred to as “Person 3” in the indictment—to speak to reporters. The focus of the probe centers on high-stakes investigations from Comey’s tenure, including the FBI’s inquiry into Russian interference in the 2016 election and the probe into Hillary Clinton’s use of a private email server while secretary of state, as detailed by the Associated Press.
The rapid-fire sequence leading to Comey’s indictment began with the abrupt resignation of Erik Siebert, the previous U.S. attorney, who had reportedly told Justice Department leaders there was insufficient evidence to bring charges against Comey. In his place, Lindsey Halligan—a former personal lawyer to Trump with no prior prosecutorial experience—was appointed U.S. attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia just days before the indictment. Halligan’s first week was tumultuous: she navigated an unfamiliar courthouse, inadvertently entered the wrong courtroom, and appeared confused about legal paperwork, according to The New York Times. Yet she managed the task that mattered most to her boss: securing an indictment against Comey.
The political context is impossible to ignore. President Trump, who has long feuded with Comey, publicly called on Attorney General Pam Bondi to pursue charges against the former FBI director and other perceived enemies, just days before the indictment landed. "No one is above the law," Bondi declared on X, formerly Twitter, after the indictment was announced, emphasizing the Justice Department’s commitment to holding those in power accountable for misleading the public. The White House press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, reinforced this stance, stating that Trump “stands by Attorney General Bondi and appreciates her efforts to make America safe again and hold criminals accountable.”
The allegations themselves stem from Comey’s 2020 Senate Judiciary Committee testimony. Under questioning from Senator Ted Cruz, Comey was pressed about whether he had authorized his then-deputy, Andy McCabe, to leak information to The Wall Street Journal regarding the FBI’s handling of the Clinton email investigation. Cruz asked bluntly, “Who’s telling the truth?” Comey responded, “I stand by the testimony you summarized that I gave in May of 2017.” In that prior testimony, Comey had said, “No,” when asked if he had ever authorized someone else at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about the Trump or Clinton investigations. Prosecutors now allege that denial was false, though the exact phrasing used in the 2020 hearing may complicate efforts to prove Comey knowingly lied, as AP notes.
Daniel Richman, a Columbia law professor and longtime Comey adviser, is believed to be “Person 3.” Richman has told investigators that while Comey never authorized him to speak to the media about the Clinton investigation, he did sometimes engage with reporters and Comey was aware of it. Comey has admitted to using Richman as a conduit in another matter—specifically, after his 2017 firing, when Comey gave Richman a memo detailing interactions with Trump, which was then shared with journalists to spur the appointment of a special counsel.
The indictment is the latest in a series of actions by Trump’s administration targeting critics and political opponents. Since January, the president has stripped former officials of security clearances, targeted law firms that previously opposed him, and slashed federal funding to certain universities. The White House’s drive for retribution, as described by The New York Times, began to intensify in mid-July, fueled by advisers who stoked Trump’s frustration over the slow pace of Justice Department investigations into his adversaries. The president’s public demand on September 20 that Bondi act swiftly set off a frantic five-day period, culminating in Siebert’s resignation and Halligan’s appointment.
Inside the U.S. attorney’s office, the mood was tense and uncertain. Some career prosecutors scrambled to update résumés, while others drafted memos to create a paper trail should they need to defend themselves or contest personnel decisions. The office’s close-knit staff faced turmoil as rumors swirled about leadership changes and the fate of the Comey investigation. At least one staff member, Troy A. Edwards Jr., resigned in protest after the indictment, stating in a letter that he was stepping down “to uphold my oath to the Constitution and the country.”
Comey, for his part, has remained defiant. In a video statement released after his indictment, he said, “My family and I have known for years there are costs to standing up to Donald Trump. My heart is broken for the Department of Justice, but I have great confidence in the federal judicial system, and I’m innocent. So, let’s have a trial.” He added, “We will not live on our knees, and you shouldn’t either.”
President Trump has made clear that Comey’s indictment may be only the beginning. “It’s not a list, but I think there will be others,” he told reporters at the White House, suggesting that more charges against political opponents are likely. He went further, labeling Comey “worse than a Democrat” and reiterating his campaign promise to pursue “vengeance against the scum” he believes weaponized the justice system against him. Indeed, other Trump critics such as former national security adviser John Bolton and New York Attorney General Letitia James are reportedly under investigation, though the evidence in those cases appears less substantial.
While Trump’s supporters argue that the indictments prove no one is above the law, critics warn that the moves threaten the independence of the Justice Department and risk turning federal law enforcement into a tool for political payback. Career officials and former prosecutors have expressed alarm at the White House’s interference, noting that only 14 of the 23 grand jurors voted to indict Comey—barely clearing the threshold. The indictment was signed solely by Halligan, without endorsement from career prosecutors who had gathered the evidence, underscoring the extraordinary nature of the case.
As the legal battle looms, the nation watches closely. Comey’s trial promises to be a flashpoint, not only for the individuals involved but for the broader question of how justice and politics intersect in a deeply polarized America. For now, both sides are digging in—each convinced of the righteousness of their cause, and each preparing for a fight that could define the next chapter of the Trump era.
