Former FBI Director James Comey has been charged a third time, after the US Justice Department unsealed court papers on Monday 26 October 2026 alleging that he directed the disclosure of national defence information to a reporter a decade ago. The development, trending per news coverage from multiple major outlets, is the latest and most legally unusual chapter in a long-running confrontation between Comey and the administration of President Donald Trump — and it arrives just days before the 2026 midterm elections.
Comey, who led the FBI from 2013 until Trump fired him in May 2017, has denied wrongdoing. In a short video posted online after the papers became public, he said: “It would almost be funny if it were not such an appalling abuse of the Department of Justice, one that we cannot become numb to. Nothing’s changed with me, I’m still innocent, I’m still not afraid of these people, and I still believe in the independent federal judiciary.” His lawyer, Patrick Fitzgerald, said the new document “purports to charge Mr Comey with crimes that he did not commit.”
What makes this case different from an ordinary prosecution is not only its subject — a former FBI director charged over his conduct in office — but its form and its timing. Prosecutors did not obtain a grand jury indictment. Instead, they filed a document called a criminal information, and they did so, according to court reporting, on the final day before a ten-year deadline expired. Whether a judge accepts that manoeuvre may decide whether the case ever reaches a trial.
What James Comey Is Charged With in the New Case
The criminal information, filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, contains two counts. Prosecutors allege that James Comey knowingly transmitted national defence information to a person not entitled to receive it, and that he conspired to do so, in violation of provisions of the Espionage Act, 18 U.S.C. sections 793(d) and (g).
The alleged conduct dates to 4–5 October 2016, when Comey was FBI director under President Barack Obama. According to prosecutors, Comey directed an intermediary — described in the papers as Individual 1, working with one or more co-conspirators — to disclose national defence information to a reporter for a national news publication. The filing does not name the specific information said to have been disclosed, nor does it name the intermediary or the alleged co-conspirators.
Comey’s lawyers and multiple news reports link the case to a New York Times article published on 5 October 2016 by reporter Charlie Savage, headlined about Yahoo adapting a spam filter to aid US email surveillance. Prosecutors are said to argue that Comey sought to correct misinformation that had appeared in the press the day before, in a Reuters report, by directing staff to speak to Savage about specific accuracy concerns — and that in doing so, classified information was illegally transferred. The court papers themselves, as reported, contain scant detail about exactly what was allegedly shared, which is one reason the next court hearings are likely to focus heavily on what prosecutors must prove and disclose.
It is important to be precise about what has — and has not — been established. A charge is an allegation, not a finding of guilt. Comey has not been convicted in this case, and his lawyers say the underlying episode was investigated previously by two prosecution teams without charges being brought. The Justice Department, for its part, has said only that this is an ongoing criminal investigation and declined to comment further.
Why James Comey Was Charged by Information, Not Indictment
In the US federal system, serious criminal cases are normally brought by a grand jury indictment. A criminal information is a charging document filed directly by prosecutors, without a grand jury vote. It is commonly used when a defendant waives indictment, but here prosecutors filed what they call a “waiverless” information — that is, without such a waiver.
The reason, according to the Justice Department, is the calendar. Certain Espionage Act offences carry a ten-year statute of limitations. The alleged disclosure took place on 5 October 2016, so that ten-year period was due to expire in early October 2026. Reporting on the court papers says the information was filed under seal on 5 October 2026 — exactly ten years after the alleged disclosure — in order to stop, or “toll,” the clock. It was then unsealed on Monday 26 October 2026, after Comey asked for public access and prosecutors did not oppose unsealing.
A Justice Department official defended the approach in a statement quoted by several outlets: “Filing a criminal information to toll the statute of limitations is a widely recognized practice in federal court and has been approved by multiple Circuit Courts of Appeals.” Prosecutors have indicated they still intend to seek a grand jury indictment.
Comey’s lawyers take the opposite view. In a motion filed on 16 October, they argued that federal law requires a grand jury indictment within ten years for these offences, and that a prosecutor-filed information cannot substitute for one. “The criminal information charging Mr Comey should be dismissed as time barred,” they wrote. US District Judge Trevor McFadden, who ordered the case unsealed and wrote that criminal charges against a former FBI director for conduct in office are of significant public interest, has yet to rule on that dismissal motion. That ruling — whether an information can toll the deadline, or whether the case is too late — could end the prosecution before any evidence is heard, or clear the way for prosecutors to present it to a grand jury.
The 2016 Article at the Centre of the Case
To understand why a ten-year-old news article matters, it helps to recall the autumn of 2016. Comey was FBI director during a fiercely contested presidential election, and his agency was at the centre of several politically explosive investigations. The Yahoo story concerned claims about email surveillance, a subject on which accurate reporting mattered to both the government and the public — and on which, prosecutors now allege, the line between correcting the record and disclosing protected information was crossed.
Comey’s defence, as set out by Fitzgerald, is broader than a dispute about one conversation. He argues that the episode was already examined, that no charges were brought then, and that reviving it a decade later — on the last possible day — is itself improper. That argument will be tested in court, but it also frames the public debate: supporters of the prosecution say no former official is above the law, however senior; critics say the case is an example of the Justice Department being used against a presidential critic.
Neither side’s characterisation settles the legal question. What a judge must decide is narrower: what the statute requires, what the filing actually did, and whether the government acted in time. The political context explains why the case is so closely watched, but it does not replace that legal test.
What Comey and His Lawyers Say
Comey’s public response has been consistent across all three cases brought against him: he denies wrongdoing, says he will fight the charges openly, and expresses confidence in the courts. After the latest papers were unsealed, he posted a video in which he said, “Well, they’re back — again,” and repeated that he remains innocent and unafraid.
Fitzgerald was more detailed. He said the government had previously determined, on two occasions, that no charges should be brought against anyone in connection with the 2016 episode. “Now, 10 years after the article was published, the government filed an ‘Information’ against Mr Comey that was not approved by a judge nor issued by a grand jury,” he said. “It purports to charge Mr Comey with crimes that he did not commit.” He added that Comey would fight the charges vigorously and in the open, and welcomed the judge’s decision to unseal the case.
That emphasis on openness matters. Because the papers were initially sealed, the public learned of the case only when it was unsealed — weeks after the filing that prosecutors say preserved it. Comey’s team sought unsealing, and the judge agreed, meaning the dismissal fight will now play out in public view.
The Two Earlier Cases Against James Comey
This is the third federal criminal matter brought against Comey under the Trump administration, and the earlier two help explain why the latest filing has drawn such attention. In September 2025, a Virginia grand jury indicted Comey on false-statement and obstruction charges tied to his 2020 testimony to Congress about media leaks. A judge dismissed that case in November 2025 after finding that the interim US attorney who brought it had been unlawfully appointed.
In April 2026, a North Carolina grand jury indicted Comey over a social media post showing seashells arranged to form “86 47,” which prosecutors alleged threatened Trump. Comey denied that allegation as well, and that case remains pending. The pattern — a dismissed case, a pending case, and now a third case built on a prosecutor-filed information — is why legal commentators are watching the statute-of-limitations ruling so closely: it will show whether this third attempt survives its first procedural hurdle.
There was also a separate, same-day development involving Comey’s family. Hours before the new charges against James Comey were unsealed, a judge ruled that the Justice Department’s 2025 firing of his daughter Maurene Comey, a federal prosecutor in Manhattan, was unlawful. That ruling concerned her employment, not her father’s criminal case, but the timing ensured that both Comey stories dominated the same news cycle. Readers can find the full background in our companion explainer, Maurene Comey Firing Ruled Unlawful 2026: Judge Orders Reinstatement.
Why the Timing Matters Before the Midterms
The unsealing came about a week before the 2026 midterm elections, a point noted by almost every major report on the case. Trump and his allies have increased pressure on the Justice Department to pursue perceived adversaries, and Comey has been one of Trump’s most prominent critics since his firing in 2017, which came as he oversaw the initial investigation into alleged ties between the 2016 Trump campaign and Russia.
That context does not, by itself, prove anything about the merits of the new charges, and prosecutors have not said the election timetable influenced their decision. The filing date they rely on — 5 October — was dictated, on their account, by the statute of limitations, not by the election. But the unsealing date, and the fact that the dismissal fight will now run through the final week of the campaign and beyond, guarantees that the case will be read politically as well as legally, whatever the court decides.
For voters, the practical question is simpler: the midterms will decide control of Congress, and the rules for casting a ballot vary by state. Our guide, How to Vote in the 2026 Midterms, sets out what is on the ballot, early voting, and how to check a polling place. The campaign itself has already produced its own flashpoints, including the Michigan rally covered in Trump Michigan Rally 2026.
What Happens Next in the James Comey Case
The immediate next step is the dismissal motion. Judge McFadden must decide whether the criminal information validly preserved the prosecution within the ten-year period, or whether, as Comey’s lawyers argue, only a grand jury indictment could do so. If he grants dismissal, prosecutors could appeal or attempt another route, but the current case would end. If he denies it, prosecutors are expected to seek a grand jury indictment, which would require them to persuade grand jurors that there is probable cause to proceed.
Beyond that, several questions remain unanswered in the public record: what specific information was allegedly disclosed, who the unnamed intermediary and alleged co-conspirators are, and whether the government will provide more detail if the case proceeds. Those gaps are normal at this early stage of a case built on a sealed filing, but they also mean readers should be cautious about claims that go beyond what the court papers actually say.
Whatever happens, the case is likely to be litigated in public, through the midterm campaign and into 2027, and its outcome could shape how the Espionage Act’s time limits are applied to senior former officials in future cases. It is a reminder that in American law, procedure — a deadline, a form of filing, a judge’s ruling on timeliness — can matter as much as the underlying allegation.
For now, the facts that are established are these: James Comey has been charged a third time, over an alleged 2016 disclosure to a reporter; he denies the charges; his lawyers say the case is time-barred; prosecutors say their filing preserved it; and a judge has yet to decide who is right. Everything else — including whether a jury will ever hear the case — is still to be determined, and this article will be updated as the court rules.
Sources: CNN, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Reuters and Newsmax reporting on the unsealed criminal information, the Justice Department statement, and statements from James Comey and his lawyer Patrick Fitzgerald, 26 October 2026.