In a move that has sent shockwaves through Washington and beyond, former FBI Director James Comey was indicted on two criminal counts late Thursday, September 25, 2025, by a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Virginia. The charges—making false statements to Congress and obstructing a congressional proceeding—stem from Comey’s 2020 testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee regarding the FBI’s investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and alleged media leaks. According to NPR, the indictment was filed just days before the statute of limitations was set to expire, underscoring the urgency with which the Justice Department acted.
This development marks a dramatic escalation in the long and tumultuous relationship between Comey and President Donald Trump, a saga that has spanned nearly a decade and encompassed everything from public praise to bitter accusations of disloyalty and dishonesty. As ABC News reported, the two men once shared a cordial rapport—Trump even lauded Comey at a White House reception just days after his inauguration in January 2017, quipping, “He’s become more famous than me.” But that brief honeymoon quickly soured. By March of that year, Comey had publicly confirmed an FBI investigation into Russian interference and possible links to the Trump campaign, drawing the president’s ire.
Trump’s frustration with Comey reached a boiling point in May 2017, when he abruptly fired the FBI director, citing dissatisfaction with his performance. Comey would later testify before Congress, refuting Trump’s claims that the FBI was in disarray and asserting that the president had pressured him to drop federal investigations into former national security adviser Michael Flynn. “Those were lies, plain and simple,” Comey told lawmakers, according to ABC News.
The animosity didn’t end there. In April 2018, Comey published his memoir, A Higher Loyalty: Truth, Lies and Leadership, in which he called Trump “morally unfit to be president.” The president responded with a barrage of social media attacks, at one point accusing Comey—without evidence—of leaking classified information. The Justice Department’s inspector general later found that Comey had violated FBI policies in leaking memos but decided not to bring charges.
Fast forward to 2025, and the political landscape has shifted dramatically. President Trump, who campaigned on a promise to use the justice system to seek retribution against his perceived political enemies, appears to be making good on that pledge. As NPR’s Mara Liasson and Carrie Johnson explained, the rapid remaking of the Justice Department under Trump’s leadership is feeding efforts to consolidate more power into the executive branch. “This really is part and parcel of what the president ran on. Donald Trump is extremely transparent. He tells you what he wants to do and he goes ahead and does it,” Liasson said during a recent broadcast.
Comey’s indictment is widely seen as a turning point for the Department of Justice. NPR noted that the decision to bring charges against the former FBI director marks “the end of the post-Watergate reforms,” which had established norms—though not laws—intended to prevent presidents from directly intervening in Justice Department affairs. “That’s now over,” Liasson observed, highlighting the erosion of the traditional separation between the White House and federal prosecutors.
The process leading up to Comey’s indictment was anything but ordinary. CBS News obtained a transcript of the brief, seven-minute court session before U.S. Magistrate Judge Lindsey Vaala, who expressed confusion and surprise after being handed two inconsistent versions of the indictment, both signed by the grand jury foreperson. Judge Vaala questioned interim U.S. Attorney Lindsey Halligan—a former Trump personal lawyer—about the discrepancy. Halligan acknowledged preparing three counts but said she only signed the two-count indictment. The confusion underscored the chaotic atmosphere that has gripped the Justice Department in recent months, as Trump’s allies have ousted career prosecutors and high-level officials at both the FBI and U.S. Attorney’s offices.
The indictment itself was personally signed by Halligan, an insurance lawyer with no prior prosecutorial experience who was recently elevated to U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia. According to NPR, Halligan appears to have overruled the advice of career prosecutors in her office, who argued that the case against Comey was weak and the evidence lacking. Attorney General Pam Bondi praised Halligan’s handling of the case on social media, calling her performance “outstanding.”
The internal turmoil at the Justice Department has been palpable. CBS News reported that the former head of the U.S. Attorney’s office in Alexandria, Erik Siebert, was fired after staffers circulated a memo stating that charges should not be brought against Comey. Siebert’s dismissal came amid broader concerns that he could be ousted for failing to criminally charge another Trump adversary, New York Attorney General Letitia James. The upheaval has led to mass firings and resignations, with many career prosecutors saying they were asked to take actions they considered unethical or misleading to the courts.
For those who have spent their careers at the Justice Department, the changes have been jarring. “People who are still inside the Justice Department and those who spent decades of their career there are really shocked at how rapidly the department has shifted,” Johnson told NPR. She noted the “loss of credibility among some grand juries” and the damage done to the department’s reputation in the eyes of the courts. Comey himself, after his indictment, reportedly said he felt “heartbroken for the Justice Department.”
The political overtones of the case are impossible to ignore. Trump had publicly demanded that the Justice Department act “now” to bring prosecutions against Comey and other political foes in the days leading up to the indictment. The charges—obstruction and making false statements—relate specifically to Comey’s 2020 testimony, in which he stood by his previous statements and denied leaking information to the press. The indictment, filed just before the statute of limitations expired, has been described as “bare bones,” with few details about the alleged falsehoods.
The broader implications for American democracy and the rule of law are profound. As Liasson pointed out, Trump’s approach signals to others that “even if I can’t convict you, I can ruin your life.” The transformation of the Justice Department, she argued, is part of a larger shift in the balance of power, with the executive branch growing stronger at the expense of Congress and the judiciary.
As the legal process unfolds, all eyes will be on the courts to see how they respond to this unprecedented prosecution of a former FBI director. For now, the indictment of James Comey stands as a stark reminder of how quickly the norms and guardrails of American governance can be upended—and how the pursuit of political retribution can reshape the very institutions meant to safeguard justice.
