On October 23, 2026, the Justice Department unsealed a criminal complaint charging Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, two former FBI intelligence officials who led the bureau's since-disbanded Foreign Influence Task Force when Hunter Biden's laptop surfaced in 2020, with making false statements to Congress. Each faces one count under 18 U.S.C. 1001(a)(2) for testimony given on July 19 and September 28, 2023. The complaint, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia (1:26-mj-00185), was filed under seal on October 20 and unsealed when both surrendered on October 23. The case was brought by the office of U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro.
The AP reported that the two “are accused by the Justice Department of making false statements in Congress in 2023 by saying that the FITF was not involved in investigations related to Hunter Biden when contemporaneous messages proved otherwise.” Pirro said on X that they “allegedly lied to Congress about their roles in the FBI's Hunter Biden investigations, with one claiming they only learned about it from Wikipedia.” She added, in a statement quoted by Fox News, “when senior FBI agents lie to Congress believing they are above the law, it's time to bring the hammer of justice down on them.” NBC News described the defendants as “frequent targets of Trump allies.”
The method and timing drew criticism in the courtroom itself. CBS News reported that charging three-year-old allegations by criminal complaint rather than indictment is highly unusual, and that Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui “thought the manner in which the case was charged seemed 'strange'” and refused a prosecution request to delay the preliminary hearing by two weeks or more, setting it for Tuesday, October 27 at 11 a.m. Faruqui said, “This is the Sword of Damocles hanging over their heads,” and, “This will follow them for the rest of their lives.” NPR reported he called the defendants' backgrounds “sparkling” and said charging conduct that is “quite old” by complaint is unusual.
Floris's lawyers said, “Nikki Floris is a patriot. She served our nation as a dedicated FBI intelligence officer for nearly 20 years. Yet today, the DOJ has accused her falsely of a crime on the say-so of politicians, not on the facts. It's no coincidence the government is filing these nonsense charges now, years later, on the eve of an election.” Ron Safer, for Benavides, said, “The alleged conduct happened years ago. The government has had the information about this for years.” The AP placed the case among a string of politically charged moves in the final two weeks before the midterms, alongside the search of Rep. Ilhan Omar's home and a corruption indictment of Virginia state Sen. L. Louise Lucas. The charges are allegations; neither defendant has entered a plea.
Update (October 28, 2026): At the October 27 preliminary hearing, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui struck a superseding complaint that prosecutors had posted to the public docket after midnight, unsigned and unsworn, adding a charge of obstructing a congressional proceeding without review by a judge, CBS News reported. “We have never had complaints filed that are unsigned,” Faruqui said. “Why today on this one case have you changed the entire history of how you charge cases? It makes it look like the United States is afraid of me trying to find probable cause.” Prosecutor John Borchert answered, “We are not afraid of a probable cause finding.” The docket was later updated to say the filings were entered in error. The original complaint stands, and the department could still try to add charges the proper way.
FBI Special Agent Bryan Witt of Kansas City, who signed the affidavit, testified that the case reached him in July after FBI Director Kash Patel gave it to the Kansas City field office. He called the assignment unusual and said, “I had concerns that this would be viewed as political,” but declined to call it a witch hunt, the New York Post reported. He also acknowledged he had no direct evidence that Benavides' claim was intentionally false. Floris' attorney Margaret Donovan noted in court that Trump alluded to the two in a speech the night before Witt was assigned and that both were named in a letter from the president directing the FBI to open an investigation, the Post reported.
Mary Dohrmann, another of Floris' lawyers, said, “The evidence is mounting that this prosecution is about some political football, and not the law or the facts in this case.” Faruqui made no probable-cause ruling after a full day of testimony; the hearing was set to continue on October 28.
Update (October 29, 2026): The preliminary hearing resumed on October 28 and again ended without a probable-cause ruling. The docket shows it was continued to October 29 at 11:30 a.m., with both defendants remaining on personal recognizance, and that the government's October 27 oral motion to add a count was “Held in Abeyance” rather than decided. Defense lawyers are asking Faruqui to dismiss the case, citing a lack of evidence and alleged prosecutorial misconduct, ABC News reported.
At the start of the October 28 session a Justice Department lawyer objected to questions about Trump's and Patel's personal role in starting the investigation. Faruqui was skeptical. “It's not typical that the president of the United States says go investigate people,” he said. “So that seems to squarely fit within an investigation to the reasonableness of the basis for the charge,” ABC reported. Witt testified that the genesis of the case was Trump's July speech, that Patel personally assigned the investigation of a list of former agents, including Floris and Benavides, to Kansas City, and that the office got regular check-ins from FBI leadership.
Earlier, Faruqui had said the government's conduct was “throwing enormous amounts of gasoline onto this fire,” and, “everything you're doing just is making me more and more concerned that there's something to that,” ABC reported. Pressed by Benavides' lawyer Ron Safer on how his client's statements affected the House Judiciary Committee's inquiry, Witt admitted that he did not ask that question of anyone on the committee; Faruqui called materiality “at the heart” of the case, The Hill reported. No ruling had been reported when this update was written.
Update (October 30, 2026): The preliminary hearing ended its third day on October 29 without a probable-cause ruling. Faruqui said he would try to decide by Monday morning, November 2, and wanted transcripts, Lawfare reported; NBC News reported that he plans to issue a written ruling Monday morning.
Witt testified that his affidavit cited a congressional staffer as present for both defendants' testimony, but that the person was not present for Benavides', NBC reported. He said that on Monday, October 26, he called House Judiciary Committee general counsel Steve Castor and was joined on the call by Pirro aide Carlton Davis and by Pirro herself. Davis told Castor, “This is our f---up,” and asked for help finding someone who had been present, Witt confirmed, according to NBC, which rendered the word that way; Witt said he still has not spoken to anyone who was there. Later that night prosecutors filed the unsigned superseding complaint that Faruqui struck (see the October 28 update).
“The evidence in this case speaks for itself [as] to the effect that kind of pressure has on sensitive investigations like this one,” Floris' lawyer Mary Dohrmann told the judge. Safer said, “That is the price we pay to allow politics to infect the process.” A prosecutor argued there was ample evidence of probable cause, Lawfare reported. The charges remain allegations.
Update (November 2, 2026): Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui found on November 2 that the government had failed to show probable cause and dismissed the criminal complaint against Floris and Benavides, NBC News, ABC News and the New York Post reported. “What has transpired here cannot be described as anything other than weaponization,” he said from the bench, ABC reported. He said “there is simply nothing” showing that either intended to make false statements, adding, “Without motive, without direct evidence, I have nothing.” The Post reported that he weighed each of the 10 alleged lies. ABC reported that he said it was the first time he had found the government short of probable cause.
Faruqui faulted Patel, Attorney General Todd Blanche and Pirro for public statements maligning the two, and accused the department of rushing the charges before the midterms, in apparent violation of its practice of limiting overt steps in politically sensitive investigations within 60 days of an election, ABC reported. “I will not bury my head in the sand and pretend I cannot read a calendar,” he said. “This case is marketing material to discourage people from joining the FBI.”
The Justice Department said it “disagrees with the Magistrate's decision, which remarkably appears to suggest that high-ranking government officials are immune from accountability for making materially false statements to Congress,” and, “We are evaluating all options but cannot comment further on an ongoing criminal investigation.” This is a magistrate judge's finding on a complaint, not an acquittal. No outlet the tracker read says whether the dismissal is with or without prejudice, and the tracker has not read a written order. NBC reported that the case could theoretically still go forward if prosecutors persuaded a grand jury, which it called unlikely given the finding, and ABC said it was not clear whether the government would appeal, amend the complaint or seek an indictment. Benavides' lawyers said, “We can only hope the government does not now go to the grand jury and try to charge this case behind closed doors.”