John Bolton legally vulnerable after the FBI raid on classified memoirs

The FBI raid on John Bolton’s home and office is linked to an investigation that reaches his controversial book, a source said in Fox News Digital, fueling speculation that Trump’s former adviser could face criminal charges.

The scope of any potential accusation against Bolton, who served under President Donald Trump before falling into disgrace with him in 2019, is uncertain, but experts tend to agree that Bolton has a certain legal exhibition.

The eminent lawyer based in DC, Mark Zaid, specializing in national security, said that there are many unknowns in the investigation of the Ministry of Justice in Bolton, his memories, “the room where it happened” could be an area of ​​vulnerability for him.

“Regarding Bolton’s book, it is potentially vulnerable if it maintains copies of the first drafts which were determined to contain” voluminous “quantities classified when it was subjected for the first time to the White House for exam,” Zaid told Fox New Digital. “These drafts were probably broadcast, by normal program, to his literary agent, to his publisher and his lawyer.”

The story of the way Trump and Bolton’s relationship fell with the stems

John Bolton waving in front of his house after a search for the FBI in his house. (Reuters / Tasos Katopodis)

Zaid added that these transmissions could be illegal under the Espionage Act, a serious set of accusations used through history to punish spies and leaks of government secrets.

During the first Trump administration, the Attorney General Bill Barr opened an investigation into Bolton and brought a civil prosecution against him during the book a few days before his release.

The MJ alienated in the trial that Bolton had jumped from the normal examination processes of the prepublication and had enabled its publisher to move forward with the printing of a book containing several passages of classified national security information.

In court documents, Bolton said that he did not initially believe that his memories contained classified information, but he then published certain information on the book after consulting the National Security Council. Bolton never received a final signature of the National Security Council before moving forward with the edition. He argued in court documents that the Trump administration’s refusal to approve the content of the Memoirs raped his rights to the first amendment and that the examination process of the National Security Council “had been abused in order to delete” the book, which contained severe criticism from Trump.

Democrats opposed John Bolton for years – until they are looking for him as an ally against Trump

FBI agents left John Bolton’s office in Washington after obtaining documents on August 22, 2025. (Fox News Digital / Emma Woodhead)

J. Judge Royce Lamberth, appointed by Régan, based in DC, denied Trump’s Doj’s request to block the publication of Bolton’s book because, among several reasons, she had already been exposed to publishers. However, Lamberth defeated Bolton.

“The Bolton defendant played with the national security of the United States,” Lamberth wrote in an order at the time. “He exposed his country to evil and himself to civil liability (and potentially criminal).”

Lamberth noted that it was likely that Bolton “endangered national security by revealing classified information” in violation of various non-divulgation agreements which he signed within the framework of his national security role.

The Doj has never carried a charge against Bolton, and the investigation was closed in the Biden administration. Doj Biden rejected the civil trial against Bolton on his book in June 2021.

JD Vance insists that the FBI is looking for Bolton at the house “not at all” on political remuneration

In this February 19, 2020, photo of file, the former national security adviser John Bolton participated in a discussion on world leadership at Vanderbilt University in Nashville, Tenn. (AP photo / Mark Humphrey, file)

While the controversy of Bolton’s book has been at the forefront since the raids of his home and the office, a well-placed source familiar with the investigation told Fox News Digital on Monday, the investigation is much wider than the book.

The search mandates, which were authorized by a judge, were based on evidence collected abroad by the CIA, the New York Times reported.

Critics note that Bolton is the last target of Doj Trump, which, despite the end of ending “armaments”, continued several of the president’s political rivals. The department launched big jury probes to the New York Attorney General James James and Senator Adam Schiff, D-Calif., And examines the Obama National Security officials who, director of national intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, tried to undermine Trump’s victory in 2016. Trump also urged an investigation into the former governor of New Jersey, “criminal acts” linked to the extension scandal of George Washington Bridge.

Former American lawyer John Fishwick of Virginia suggested that the border between a meticulous examination of potential reprehensible acts and political revenge has become vague.

“Trump Doj targeting Trump’s enemies – Letitia James, Adam Schiff, Governor of the Federal Reserve (Lisa) Cook and now John Bolton. Trump seems to want them to be injured for personal / political reasons, but if they have violated the law, are the investigations justified?” Fishwick told Fox News Digital in a statement. “This question puts an incredible stress test on our legal system.”

Zaid noted that Bolton could bring allegations of selective or vindictive proceedings if he was charged but that they are difficult to prove.

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

Lawyer Jason Kander, army veteran and former secretary of state of the Missouri, said on the podcast “speaking of the federals” that even if the DoJ does not obtain a condemnation against Bolton, the legal process itself is a punishment.

“It is not only harassment. It is a potential financial ruin,” said Kander. “When they come after you like it, it doesn’t matter if there is no sparkle of evidence. It is half a million dollars in legal costs in a situation like this.”