A new Comey case became public Monday, Oct. 26, when a federal judge unsealed allegations that the former FBI director helped disclose national defense information in 2016. The immediate fight is over whether prosecutors filed a legally timely charge. Comey denies breaking the law. This new Comey case has drawn significant attention from the public and media alike.

The charging paper is a criminal information, filed by prosecutors on Oct. 5, 2026. It is not a grand jury indictment. U.S. District Judge Trevor McFadden’s unsealing order made the case public but did not decide Comey’s request to dismiss it. The accusations have not been proved, and Comey is presumed innocent.

That distinction matters in a case involving a former law-enforcement chief and a president who has repeatedly criticized him. Public access now allows readers to examine the allegations and the defense together, rather than treat a prosecution announcement as a verdict.

What prosecutors actually filed

The three-page criminal information alleges two offenses. One count accuses Comey of knowingly and willfully transmitting national defense information to someone not entitled to receive it. The second alleges a conspiracy to make that disclosure.

The document places the alleged disclosure on or about Oct. 5, 2016. It says Comey, acting through others, directed an unnamed individual to disclose national defense information to a reporter for a national news publication. The information does not identify that person, the reporter or the publication, and it does not lay out a full public account of the evidence.

Prosecutors cite 18 U.S.C. Sections 793(d) and 793(g). The charging document is an accusation by the government. Its use of legal terms such as conspiracy does not establish that an agreement existed or that any accused person committed a crime.

The allegation behind the short charging document

In their Oct. 23 response to the dismissal motion, prosecutors connect the case to an Oct. 5, 2016, New York Times report about Yahoo and U.S. email surveillance. They allege Comey directed staff to address what he viewed as errors in an earlier Reuters report and that classified information was unlawfully conveyed in that process.

The government says similarities between an internal email and the published reporting support its position. That is its account of the evidence, not an independent finding by this newspaper or a jury. The public information alone does not resolve who authorized which words, what information was protected or whether every element of an offense can be proved.

Why an information is different from an indictment

An indictment comes from a grand jury. An information is a charging document signed by a prosecutor. Those words describe different steps in the criminal process and should not be used as if they mean the same thing.

Under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 7, a felony punishable by more than one year in prison generally must be prosecuted by indictment. The rule permits prosecution by information when a defendant, after being advised of the charge and rights, waives indictment in open court.

The government acknowledges in its filing that Comey cannot be convicted in this case without an indictment or a waiver. It argues its present filing can still preserve the time to prosecute. That is the narrower procedural claim at issue, not a claim that a prosecutor’s signature alone establishes guilt.

The fight over a ten-year deadline

Most federal noncapital offenses fall under a general five-year charging deadline unless another law provides otherwise. That statute expressly refers to both an indictment and an information.

A separate provision, Section 19 of the Internal Security Act of 1950, supplies a longer period for specified national-security offenses. The statutory note accompanying Section 792 says an indictment for the covered offenses may be found within ten years. That wording lies at the center of the current dispute.

Comey’s Oct. 16 dismissal motion argues that Congress deliberately named an indictment in the ten-year provision and did not include an information. His lawyers say prosecutors cannot obtain the longer period simply by filing their own charging paper. They argue the ordinary five-year period has already expired.

The government answers that the longer period applies to the offenses, not just to one type of charging document. It also says the dismissal request is premature. These are competing interpretations for the court to resolve; neither side’s filing settles the law.

The dates are important. The information was filed on the tenth anniversary of the alleged disclosure. The dispute therefore concerns both the length of the allowable period and what legal action had to occur before that period ended.

A serious charge requires proof of specific elements

The statute cited in the case addresses particular conduct involving national defense material. The provision used in the first count concerns someone with lawful access who willfully passes protected material or information to an unauthorized recipient. The conspiracy provision requires an agreement to violate the law and an act to carry out that agreement.

The law provides a possible prison term of up to ten years for the underlying offense. A maximum allowed by statute is not a sentence, a prediction or evidence of guilt. Before punishment could be considered, the prosecution would have to overcome the procedural challenge and establish the required facts through the legal process.

What the defense says about earlier investigations

Comey’s lawyers say the same alleged disclosure was examined in two earlier federal investigations that ended without charges. Their motion points to reviews associated with John Durham and the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, and cites FBI records released later. They also state that Comey maintains his innocence.

Those earlier decisions are part of the defense’s account. A prior decision not to prosecute is not a trial acquittal, and the present allegation is not proof that the earlier reviews were wrong. The question for this case remains what the government can lawfully charge and prove now.

Why the records were opened

McFadden granted Comey’s request to unseal the case after the government said it did not oppose release. His order emphasized the public interest in both a former FBI director’s alleged official conduct and the government’s decision to prosecute it.

The judge also noted that the government was no longer pressing its earlier concerns about interference with investigations. His order reserved the remaining dismissal issues for later consideration. Unsealing therefore supplied transparency, not a ruling on the truth of the charge or the deadline argument.

What to watch next

The Associated Press reported Monday that the newly public matter represents another attempt by the Trump administration to prosecute Comey after two other criminal cases. This article focuses on the new Washington case, rather than treating the separate allegations as one proceeding.

The next meaningful developments would be a ruling on dismissal, any grand jury indictment in this matter and a clearer public account of the evidence. Until then, the sound reading is specific: prosecutors have filed an information, the defense disputes its legality and substance, and the court has opened the records without deciding guilt.

Reporting note: This article is based on the criminal information, the defense motion, the government’s response and the Oct. 26 unsealing order in United States v. Comey, No. 1:26-cr-00229. Allegations are attributed and remain unproved.