Court records unsealed on Monday reveal that former FBI Director James Comey is facing a third criminal prosecution brought by President Donald Trump's administration, which accuses him of sharing sensitive national security details.
The official legal document states Comey was charged with transmitting and conspiring to transmit national defense information back in October 2016.
“Well, they’re back — again,” Comey said in a video statement released on Instagram after the documents dropped. “It would almost be funny if it weren't 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 an independent federal judiciary.”
Meanwhile, lawyers representing Comey have already petitioned a judge to dismiss the case.
The news came just hours after a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration acted illegally when it fired Maurene Comey, the daughter of James Comey, from her position as a federal prosecutor in New York last year.
Judge Jesse M. Furman determined that Maurene Comey, who served as an assistant U.S. attorney for ten years, was unlawfully removed in July 2025 despite handling major national cases and earning "the highest accolades from supervisors and peers alike."
Maurene Comey is known for bringing criminal cases against Jeffrey Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell and music mogul Sean "Diddy" Combs during her tenure at the Manhattan U.S. Attorney's office.
Following her removal, Maurene Comey brought a lawsuit against the Justice Department and other officials, alleging her dismissal breached the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment's Due Process Clause, and the constitutional separation of powers.
The judge highlighted her assertion that her firing stemmed from being the daughter of James Comey—whom President Donald Trump has long regarded as an adversary—or from assumptions regarding her perceived political affiliation and beliefs.
Furman rejected arguments presented by the government asserting that federal prosecutors could be removed at will because they exercise the president's "conclusive and preclusive" authority. He said that the government's claim that Congress lacks the authority to govern the dismissal of federal prosecutors "flies in the face of nearly two centuries of Supreme Court precedent."
Furman added: "Indeed, to accept Defendants’ argument would be to unsettle the very equilibrium established by this Nation’s constitutional system."