|
A data broker owned by the country’s major airlines, including Delta, American Airlines, and United, collected US travelers’ domestic flight records, sold access to them to Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and then as part of the contract told CBP to not reveal where the data came from, according to internal CBP documents The data includes passenger names, their full flight itineraries, and financial details.  CBP, a part of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), says it needs this data to support state and local police to track people of interest’s air travel across the country, in a purchase that has alarmed civil liberties experts. The documents reveal for the first time in detail why at least one part of DHS purchased such information, and comes after Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detailed its own purchase of the data. The documents also show for the first time that the data broker, called the Airlines Reporting Corporation (ARC), tells government agencies not to mention where it sourced the flight data from. “The big airlines—through a shady data broker that they own called ARC—are selling the government bulk access to Americans' sensitive information, revealing where they fly and the credit card they used,” senator Ron Wyden said in a statement. ARC is owned and operated by at least eight major US airlines, other publicly released documents show. The company’s board of directors include representatives from Delta, Southwest, United, American Airlines, Alaska Airlines, JetBlue, and European airlines Lufthansa and Air France, and Canada’s Air Canada. More than 240 airlines depend on ARC for ticket settlement services. ARC’s other lines of business include being the conduit between airlines and travel agencies, finding travel trends in data with other firms like Expedia, and fraud prevention, according to material on ARC’s YouTube channel and website. The sale of US fliers’ travel information to the government is part of ARC’s Travel Intelligence Program (TIP). A Statement of Work included in the newly obtained documents, which describes why an agency is buying a particular tool or capability, says CBP needs access to ARC’s TIP product “to support federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies to identify persons of interest’s US domestic air travel ticketing information.” These documents wee obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. The new documents also show ARC asking CBP to “not publicly identify vendor, or its employees, individually or collectively, as the source of the Reports unless the Customer is compelled to do so by a valid court order or subpoena and gives ARC immediate notice of same.” The Statement of Work says that TIP can show a person’s paid intent to travel and tickets purchased through travel agencies in the US and its territories. The data from the Travel Intelligence Program (TIP) will provide “visibility on a subject’s or person of interest’s domestic air travel ticketing information as well as tickets acquired through travel agencies in the U.S. and its territories,” the documents say. They add that this data will be “crucial” in both administrative and criminal cases.
0 Comments
“The court’s decision confirms that key members of our community should never have been criminalized simply for being here and living their lives in peace. This ruling restores a sense of safety and dignity to people who call Iowa home.”  Iowa cannot enforce a 2024 state statute that makes it a crime for a person previously deported to reenter the state, a federal appeals court said in a decision issued Thursday. The statute, passed by Iowa’s GOP-dominated Legislature in 2024 and signed into law by Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds, also a Republican, makes it illegal under state law for noncitizens to reenter the country after having previously been removed or excluded. Iowa judges could order deportation or impose a sentence of up to 10 years in prison for refusal to comply with deportation. This statute, which would entirely bypass immigration enforcement by the federal government, conflicts with immigration-enforcement discretion Congress gives to federal officials and may not be enforced by the state, a three-judge panel of the St. Louis-based U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit said in its decision handed down Thursday. The Court of Appeals, however, directed the trial court to narrow the scope of its preliminary injunction to address whether it was a “universal injunction” or only relief to the plaintiffs and to decide whether an immigration organization has standing as a plaintiff to sue for injuries to itself. The decision, written by U.S. Circuit Judge Duane Benton, a George W. Bush appointee, was joined by Senior Circuit Judge Morris Arnold, a George H.W. Bush appointee, and U.S. Circuit Judge Jonathan Kobes, a Donald Trump appointee. “While we are disappointed with the Eighth Circuit’s ruling today, we are not done working to uphold Iowa’s laws,” Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird said in a statement Thursday. But Bird acknowledged that under President Trump, the immigration landscape has changed. “Under the Biden Administration, every state became a border state. Now, President Trump has delivered on his promise to close the borders and has shown his support for Iowa’s right to do the same in our state.” Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice, Jane Doe and Elizabeth Roe sued the state in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Iowa in May 2024. Doe and Roe are noncitizen immigrants living in Iowa who claim to be harmed by the state’s law. Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice provides legal services and advocacy on immigration issues. The U.S. Justice Department filed a similar suit during the Biden administration, but it was later withdrawn after President Trump came into office. “This is a tremendous relief for thousands of Iowa families,” said Erica Johnson, founding executive director of Iowa Migrant Movement for Justice (Iowa MMJ), the organization that brought the lawsuit. “The court’s decision confirms that key members of our community should never have been criminalized simply for being here and living their lives in peace. This ruling restores a sense of safety and dignity to people who call Iowa home.” In holding that Iowa’s statute is preempted by federal immigration regulation, the Eighth Circuit pointed out that while an Iowa state judge “shall” order a person returned his or her country of origin, without exception, federal law gives federal officials discretion about the removal of such persons in cases such as those who express fear of returning to the country designated in an order of removal. “The effect of [Iowa’s statute], even as Bird interprets it on appeal, is to deliver aliens to the Des Moines International Airport with an order to leave the United States for the country from which they entered or attempted to enter, or face further criminal penalties for refusing to obey,” Benton wrote. “The effect of the act is for illegal aliens not just to leave Iowa but to remove themselves from the United States entirely.” Iowa’s statute thus “violates the principle that the removal process is entrusted to the discretion of the federal government,” he wrote Thursday.
U.S. Secret Service agents have arrested Michigan resident and accused the former U.S. Air Force airman of threatening to kill President Donald Trump over the administration's LGBTQ+ policies  U.S. Secret Service agents have arrested a Michigan man and accused the former U.S. Air Force airman of threatening to kill President Donald Trump over the administration's LGBTQ+ policies, according to federal court records unsealed Thursday. Joshua Levi Young, 21, of Ishpeming, is accused of issuing several threats since January that called for the execution of Trump, including posts that read "Death to Trump," "Death To POTUS" and "Kill the dictator." The case unsealed Thursday charged Young with threatening to kill and injure the president, and transmitting an interstate threat, both five-year felonies. U.S. Magistrate Judge Maarten Vermaat ordered Young held without bond after a detention hearing Thursday in Marquette. Young's lawyer, Elizabeth LaCosse, did not respond immediately to a message seeking comment. The charges are the latest filed amid an increase of violent antigovernment extremism in Michigan and beyond that has included two assassination attempts targeting Trump since last year. Other threats include a former member of the Michigan Army National Guard who was charged in May after prosecutors said he tried to attack a military base in Warren on behalf of the Islamic State. The investigation started with an anonymous tip in mid-September that Young had threatened Trump on Facebook. The next day, Secret Service investigators searched social media and found several threats posted on Instagram, Facebook and X this year. "I am going to kill Trump raise him from the dead and kill him again," one Instagram post read. "Death to Trump." Public records led to Young as the author of the posts, Special Agent Adam Rogers wrote in the criminal filing. The agent and an Ishpeming Police sergeant questioned Young, who served in the Air Force from 2022-24, at his home Oct. 7. "When asked why he made the comments documented in the open-source research, Young stated 'I don’t like what he’s doing,' referencing Trump," the agent wrote. "Young continued to explain he is a gay/non-binary person who aligns with the LGBTQ community and is angered by the administration’s policies on LGBTQ rights." Young also said he was frustrated and saddened by the administration's handling of immigration rights. "I hurt when others hurt," Young said and admitted to authoring the posts, according to the court filing. "Young continued by stating the administration's 'lack of assistance and protecting the American people and protecting the elites' frustrates him," the agent wrote. After the interview, investigators searched his home and seized Young's electronic devices. Soon after, an employee at a Veterans' Affairs clinic in Ishpeming called police, saying Young entered the clinic and asked for legal help because he was "considering fleeing the country." "The employee stated that her understanding based on the conversation she inferred that Young was looking to speak to an attorney to determine what countries did not extradite to the United States," the agent wrote. The U.S. Defense Department and the Department of Veteran Affairs are making it difficult, and sometimes impossible for veterans to get infertility treatments, according to lawsuits filed previously in Boston and New York  Federal officials and lawmakers don’t deny that fraud exists due to some service members illegally gaming the system of benefits they receive through the government. But the numbers aren’t as drastic or obscene as some recent reports have indicated, according to the Department of Veterans’ Affairs (VA).
Fraud, waste and abuse has for years been a concern for the VA and affiliated committees within Congress going back years, in terms of veterans being both victims and perpetrators of such crimes. As of April 2022, the VA reported that veterans aged 65 and older who received pension benefits totaled 160,270 and were the age group most often susceptible to crimes. Recent reports suggest, in accordance with government data, that veteran disability claims have exploded and put American taxpayers on the hook for millions of dollars to resolve such disputes. House Committee on Veterans Affairs Chairman Mike Bost (R-IL) remains committed to the VA being “a proper steward of taxpayer dollars,” which includes working with VA Secretary Doug Collins and the Trump administration to guarantee that the care and compensation benefits veterans receive accurately reflect the injuries they sustained as a result of their service. “Veterans earn their VA benefits through honorable service in uniform, and an overwhelming majority of veterans bring that same sense of honor and duty when it comes to seeking their benefits and care,” Bost said. “Whether the root of the problem is bad actors or bureaucratic dysfunction at VA, fraud, waste and abuse unfortunately exist in every federal program. “Under my leadership, we have worked hard to find ways to fight bureaucratic waste, cut through the red tape, and implement commonsense reforms to the VA disability claims process to ensure that veterans and their families receive their benefits.” Reasons For Receiving Benefits VA compensation for about 6.9 million disabled veterans this year will be subsidized by U.S. taxpayers footing the bills for an approximate $193 billion total, according to an investigation by the Washington Post earlier this month. But not all money is allegedly going where it should. The Post reported that the ability to work is supposedly hindered by more innocuous reasons such as hair loss, jock itch and toenail fungus—all of which don’t typically cause impairment. About 556,000 veterans receive disability benefits for eczema, 332,000 for hemorrhoids, 110,000 for benign skin growths, 81,000 for acne and 74,000 for varicose veins, they reported, citing the most recently available figures from the VA. To the contrary, about 10,900 service members who’ve suffered “severe” or “penetrating” brain injuries since 2000 are eligible for benefits and fewer than 1,700 veterans who lost limbs in Afghanistan and Iraq receive disability payments, per the Post. ‘Misleading’ The Public The report and data mentioned within the Post report was strongly refuted by the VA. VA spokesperson Pete Kasperowicz told Military.com that the report was published by “out-of-touch liberal activists peddling [a] garbage story.” “America’s veterans earned their VA benefits, and it should be easier—not harder—to get them,” Kasperowicz said. “Under President Trump, we are improving VA so it’s faster and more convenient for veterans to get what our nation owes them.” Asked if taxpayers are being left on the hook to pay some of these funds, he said the Washington Post “is trying to mislead the public by citing a few documented instances of fraud in which the perpetrators were convicted of crimes, as proof that many veterans are cheating the system.” “When VA sees signs of fraud or suspicious behavior, it works with the appropriate law enforcement authorities to protect taxpayers, veterans, families, caregivers and survivors,” Kasperowicz added. Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) also criticized the Post piece, writing a letter Oct. 7 to the publication's editors that it "is not just a disservice to veterans—it is a dangerously misleading piece that feeds into damaging stereotypes and ignores both the moral and legal foundations of the Department of Veterans Affairs disability system." In June of this year, the VA Office of Inspector General (OIG) announced it was increasing its investigations to combat fraudsters and others exploiting veterans “to access their VA benefits for personal gain.” “Predatory claims sharks are individuals that deploy wide-ranging fraud schemes to get veterans to pay them for assistance in filing VA benefits claims, when they are often unaccredited to do so,” OIG said. “They frequently offer to help obtain or increase a veteran’s benefits, while asking for direct payment or a portion of the veteran’s benefits awarded in exchange.” They continue to work with law enforcement partners as part of the OIG-led “Operation NO SCAM” endeavor to pursue active cases nationwide. Murky Digital Risk Environment Jordan Burris, head of public sector at identity verification and fraud prevention at company Socure, told Military.com that by and large veterans will play by the rules and follow laws, translating to fraud not directly correlating with integrity but more broadly questions about the controls that have been put in place kept up with today’s digital risk environment. “There’s always been this underpinning, or this thread or discussion, related to fraud in veterans’ benefits—specifically around claims and eligibility and understanding whether or not they should have received the benefit in question and how the process is always managed,” Burris said. “The piece that I always like to highlight is that it isn’t only about the content of the claim, while that is an important aspect of it; it’s also about the integrity of the identity that is being asserted for that veteran across the entire life cycle,” he added. Burris served across the Trump and Biden administrations as chief of staff in the White House Office of the CIO (Chief Information Officer). He said that everything from the initial intake to the representation, to every time a veteran’s account has changed, and ultimately to disbursement, should be taken into account. “Even if you look over the last two years, from 2024 until now, there have been instances that have been highlighted, discussions and areas where the controls and the ways in which we’ve managed this today across the country have been lax and they have not been up to the task of better protecting the identity information for veterans,” he added. That in turn, of course, impacts their ability to receive the benefits that they duly deserve. Socure’s major efforts on behalf of clients involve two main objectives: verifying identities and then combatting any identity fraud that occurs. That is becoming increasingly more difficult in an age where fraud of all kinds—in not just the VA but in banking, financial technology, cryptocurrency or gaming—is becoming more complex. In the VA’s case, Burris said one thing bad actors attempt is getting access to veterans’ information or the benefit itself from the adversary. “You can make the adversaries to be China, Russia, North Korea, a number of them today that essentially are seeking to take these benefits and use them for other nefarious-type purposes,” he said. Victims And Perpetrators Burris said that while the figures and narrative painted by the Washington Post could be accurate, there’s a different way to look at fraud and how it occurs. That includes finding out whether individuals are committing fraud themselves, part of more strategic schemes, or if veterans are simply playing by the rules but are being impersonated and taken advantage of by other people or groups like hackers or those with greater tech expertise. The government takes responsibility in these matters, too, he added. A push to improve the underlying infrastructure may in turn better the way in which individuals’ identities are verified or proven; whether or not they are applying things that would be more phishing-resistant types of authentication every time they access platforms. Sometimes the issue is a basic one, like an agency not checking and confirming whether a bank account that received a direct deposit actually belongs to a veteran. He said the solution calls for what he describes as “modern identity rails” that protect veterans from being victimized. That involves improving what can be measured, like pushing companies and organizations to publish identity risk KPIs and better assess rate structures. “Pair those with basic practices that are used today within the payment integrity circles within [the] federal government to get better insight into where things are not working, such that you can actually have more informed decisions, discussions around what could be done to make improvements," he said. "And then, of course, look across the broader scam economy.” A U.S. district court judge in Austin found the law violated First Amendment rights.  A federal judge has permanently blocked parts of a Texas law that required vendors to rate books for sexual content before selling them to schools, ruling the law unconstitutional. The judge found the law, known as the Restricting Explicit and Adult-Designated Educational Resources (READER) Act, violates the First Amendment because it compels speech, is overly vague, and constitutes an unconstitutional prior restraint. The ruling permanently enjoined the rating system provisions, but did not block a separate law (HB 183) that allows parents to review library materials and file complaints. Key details of the ruling:
"[Kirk] has no long record of service to USAFA, What he does have is long record of racist and sexist statements, though"  Efforts by some encouraging the U.S. Air Force Academy to posthumously honor former conservative commentator and Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk were rejected on Friday, according to the nonprofit membership organization Academy's Association of Graduates (AOG).
Kirk was fatally shot in the neck September 10 while speaking to about 3,000 attendees at Utah Valley University during a Turning Point USA event. The assassination spawned both massive outpourings of support as well as dissention, based largely on political views. "We are grateful to all who have taken the time to reach out by phone and email, and to those who attended today’s meeting in person, to share their views," the AOG said Friday in a statement. "The AOG Board, serving as the governing body of the Association, took the thoughtful feedback received into account. "The Honorary Member and honorary degree motions concerning Mr. Kirk were withdrawn." The AOG said that several hundred Air Force Academy graduates, parents and family members had contacted the association since Wednesday to share perspectives on two motions included among others during the Oct. 17 Board of Directors meeting. One of the motions recommended that the U.S. Air Force Academy seek the authority to posthumously award an honorary degree to Kirk, who was serving as a presidential appointee to the Academy Board of Visitors at the time of his death. Another motion sought to recognize Mr. Kirk as an Honorary Member of the Association of Graduates. Both motions were introduced by individual members of the board. Another Vote The motions were reportedly introduced by Lt. Gen. Rod Bishop, a retire Air Force veteran, according to another Air Force veteran, Marty France. "[Kirk] has no long record of service to USAFA," France wrote on his Substack on Oct. 16. "What he does have is long record of racist and sexist statements, though. These are well-documented on thousands of sites and not worth rehashing. Probably the most galling to USAFA graduates, though, are his comments about seeing a black pilot in the cockpit of an airliner. 'If I see a Black pilot, I’m gonna be like, ‘Boy, I hope he’s qualified.' "That’s a funny statement coming from someone who had no qualifications to be a member of the USAFA Board of Visitors—overseeing an institution that has probably produced more qualified pilots, of all races, than any other school in the nation. His comments about women, and other minorities, Muslims, and the LGBTQ+ communities are just as bad—and well-documented." France told Military.com that bylaws stipulate that someone can only be nominated twice for votes. "They may try again, but I'm confident they'll lose," he said. The case is State of Oregon v. Trump, 25-6268, US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit  A U.S. appeals court allowed for now President Donald Trump’s plan to deploy troops to Portland, Oregon, to counter protests against his immigration crackdown, a major boost for the administration’s effort to send the military into Democratic-led cities. A divided court in San Francisco on Monday lifted an order earlier this month that blocked the deployment of 200 Oregon National Guard members to Portland, a city Trump has claimed without evidence is “burning to the ground.” The 2-1 ruling doesn’t affect a second order issued by the same lower court judge that blocked the deployment of troops from any state, so an immediate deployment may not be possible. But the government has said it will quickly ask the judge to dissolve that order if the appeals court ruled in its favor. The move by Trump in Portland follows earlier deployments of troops to Los Angeles and Washington, DC, where he claimed crime is out of control and some federal property was in danger from protesters. The president’s recent attempt to send troops to Chicago was temporarily halted Oct. 9 by a judge in that city. A federal appeals court affirmed the order. The Supreme Court may have the final say. State National Guard troops are under the control of individual governors, but the administration has argued U.S. law permits the president to federalize the troops in the event of a rebellion, a foreign invasion or when the president is unable to execute the laws using regular law enforcement. In Oregon, U.S. District Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, said there were no facts to support the president’s claims on social media that Portland was ravaged by war and that anarchists and professional agitators were trying to burn down federal property and other buildings. Her first order blocked Trump’s plan to send 200 Oregon guardsmen to the state’s biggest city. Immergut issued a second temporary order during an emergency hearing the next day, after Trump sought to circumvent her decision by sending troops from California and Texas instead of Oregon. California also joined Oregon’s lawsuit as a result of the move. During the appeals court hearing on Oct. 9, Oregon faced particularly tough questioning by one of the panel’s two Trump-appointed judges, Ryan D. Nelson, who repeatedly expressed his belief that the state shouldn’t be allowed to second-guess the decision of the president. The panel majority — Nelson and another Trump-appointed judge, Bridget Bade — rejected Oregon’s argument that Trump’s assessment of the protest situation in Portland was out-of-date and not made in good faith. “The evidence the president relied on reflects a colorable assessment of the facts and law within a range of honest judgment,” the majority said. “We thus conclude that Defendants are likely to succeed on the merits of their appeal.” The majority also looked at the broader protest situation across the U.S., including a deadly shooting at an ICE facility that left one detainee dead, to support Trump’s troop deployment to protect federal property. Oregon had argued that only the situation in Portland should be taken into account. Oregon also failed to sway the appeals court to base its decision only on the smaller protests at the Portland ICE facility in the weeks and months before Trump’s deployment. The majority instead looked back to early June, when violence and threats of violence forced the facility to close for nearly three weeks and required a surge in federal personnel from other agencies. The ruling is temporary in nature but gives an indication of how the appeals court judges view the arguments in the case. A three-day trial on the merits is set to start in Portland on Oct. 29, meaning the appeals court may soon be asked to review the case again. The landmark settlement announced Friday by plaintiffs' counsel Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC marks the first settlement in a group of seven lawsuits where a bankruptcy stay has been lifted so that individual cases could proceed to trial against the diocese.  The first lawsuit under New York's Child Victims Act that was ready for trial against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany resulted in a "landmark" $8 million settlement, a win for survivors with claims in more than 400 other pending claims.
The settlement was announced Friday by plaintiffs' counsel Pfau Cochran Vertetis Amala PLLC on behalf of Michael Harmon. The New York man alleges he was subjected to years of abuse during the 1980s by a vice chancellor who was removed decades later from the ministry, after leaders acknowledged he sexually abused minors. The law firm said the resolution is a landmark in that it marks the first settlement in a group of seven lawsuits where a bankruptcy stay has been lifted so that individual cases could proceed to trial. New York’s CVA provided a one-year lookback window from August 2019 to August 2020—later extended to August 2021 because of the COVID-19 pandemic—during which survivors could file civil lawsuits regardless of when the abuse occurred. Since then, more than 400 cases have been filed against the Roman Catholic Diocese of Albany, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2023, resulting in automatic stays of the pending state court cases. The Harmon settlement was reached on the eve of a jury trial. His case had been scheduled to start trial on Monday. According to court filings, Harmon offered to settle his claim in March, but the diocese’s insurance companies didn't respond. Attempts to reach a diocesan spokesperson on Friday were unsuccessful. Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott, counsel for the diocese, didn't return an email message. Harmon filed the lawsuit in March 2020 in the state Supreme Court of Albany County, with the diocese and St. Catherine’s Center for Children, where Harmon was a resident, named defendants. The complaint for negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress said Father Edward Pratt used his position as priest to groom and sexually abuse Harmon when Harmon was 11 to 16 years old between 1980 and 1985. Pratt held the position of vice chancellor of the docese at the time of the abuse, and he would later admit to molesting boys. Pratt wouldn't have been available to testify due to his age and declining health, according to a stipulation in the case file. In November 2018, the diocese released a list of 46 priests—including Pratt—that it determined had been credibly accused of sexually abusing children. “We commend Michael’s bravery in coming forward, in standing up to the Diocese, in uncovering the magnitude of what the Diocese knew about its priests using their positions to sexually abuse children, and for his willingness to take his case to a jury trial for the benefit of all of the survivors in the Diocese of Albany,” said Mallory Allen, a partner at PCVA Law, which represents hundreds of survivors who were sexually abused as children throughout New York who filed civil claims under the CVA. “We are hopeful that the Diocese’s decision to settle this case on the eve of trial means that it—and even more importantly, its insurance companies—will step up and do what is right for the hundreds of others who were abused as children in this Diocese and who are still waiting for justice,” Allen stated. “This settlement, though certainly substantial, does not erase the trauma that Michael Harmon endured,” said co-counsel Cynthia LaFave, of LaFave, Wein, Frament & Karic. “But Michael does know that this settlement brings to the public this horrible abuse and the people who allowed it. For him, it is believing that children today will be more protected because he was willing to go to trial is what matters the most. This is the first step in a long road ahead for all the survivors of sexual abuse in the Diocese of Albany. President Donald Trump ordered the prosecution of James Comey in retaliation for the former FBI director's criticisms, his lawyers said in a motion asking a federal judge to dismiss the indictment for alleged vindictive prosecution from an interim U.S. attorney that in another motion, they said is serving in the role unlawfully.  Attorneys for former FBI Director James Comey filed two motions on October 20, 2025, to dismiss the two-count indictment against him. One motion alleges the case is a vindictive prosecution instigated by President Trump, while the other claims the U.S. attorney who brought the charges was unlawfully appointed. Motion alleging vindictive prosecution This motion argues that the prosecution is a politically motivated act of retribution by the Trump administration.
Motion challenging the prosecutor's appointment The second motion argues that the indictment is invalid because the U.S. attorney who brought the case was not properly appointed.
Indictment details
Next steps
John BoltonThe 26-page indictment alleges John Bolton from April 2018 until August 2025 "abused his position as National Security Advisor by sharing more than a thousand pages of information about his day-to-day activities as the National Security Advisor" and unlawfully retained classified documents at his home in Montgomery County, Maryland.  Former Trump National Security Adviser John Bolton was indicted in October 2025 on 18 federal charges related to the alleged mishandling of classified documents. A vocal critic of President Trump, Bolton has pleaded not guilty and claims the prosecution is politically motivated retribution. Indictment Details The indictment against Bolton includes 18 federal charges for the alleged unlawful transmission and retention of national defense information. The allegations state Bolton shared over 1,000 pages of classified information, some at the Top Secret level, via unsecure personal email and messaging apps. Prosecutors claim that Iranian-linked hackers compromised Bolton's personal email in 2021, potentially accessing this sensitive information. The charges are unrelated to his 2020 memoir, The Room Where It Happened. Concerns about Politically-Charged Prosecutions The indictment of Bolton has raised concerns about potential political motivations, as it follows other recent federal charges against prominent critics of President Trump, including former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James. While the timing is suspicious, legal experts suggest Bolton's case appears more substantial than those against Comey and James. The Bolton investigation began under the Biden administration and was brought by career prosecutors, contrasting with the Comey and James indictments, which were initiated by a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney. |
Categories |
RSS Feed
© Walk 4 Change. All rights reserved.