WASHINGTON, United States — Two former senior FBI officials have been charged with allegedly making false statements to Congress about investigations involving Hunter Biden and his laptop before the 2020 presidential election.
Nikki Cole Floris and Bradley Benavides each face one count under a federal law that prohibits knowingly and willfully making materially false statements to Congress. The Justice Department announced the charges on October 23, 2026.
The allegations stem from interviews with the House Judiciary Committee in 2023. Prosecutors say the officials understated what they knew about the investigations and the FBI’s Foreign Influence Task Force, or FITF.
The government cites emails, internal messages, briefings and witness accounts that it says contradict their testimony. Both defendants dispute the charges and are presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.
What prosecutors say the officials told Congress
Floris testified before the House Judiciary Committee on July 19, 2023. Benavides gave a transcribed interview on September 28, 2023. Lawmakers were examining the FITF’s role in FBI investigations involving Hunter Biden.
Floris served as the task force’s deputy assistant director from mid-2019 to mid-2022. Benavides was its section chief from mid-2019 through the 2020 election.
According to the complaint, lawmakers asked Floris whether she had been involved in the Hunter Biden investigation. She answered, “I did not.”
She also said she had not discussed Hunter Biden at the task force. She added that she could not speak for every employee who worked under her.
■ Related News
When asked about the laptop, Floris said she did not know about it and could not explain how the FBI would have handled such a device. Prosecutors argue that records of internal discussions contradict those answers.
Benavides gave a different account of when he learned about the laptop. Asked when he first learned the FBI had it, he referred to “The Wikipedia page,” describing what he had read while preparing for his 2023 interview.
Prosecutors say his testimony also conflicted with records of earlier discussions.
The case turns on what each official knew and said. Being aware of an investigation, attending a briefing and directly managing investigative work are not the same thing. Prosecutors must show that each defendant knowingly made a materially false statement.
The evidence cited by prosecutors
The complaint describes communications between the FITF and FBI teams investigating Hunter Biden. Prosecutors say the records show that information moved between the groups through briefings, emails, messages and meetings.
One example dates to August 14, 2020. The task force held a call with the Hunter Biden investigative team about a proposed “defensive briefing.” These briefings warn people that they may be targets of foreign influence or espionage.
According to the filing, Floris and Benavides took part in presenting classified material. The investigative team then asked the task force to conduct additional intelligence checks concerning Hunter Biden and his companies.
The complaint also describes messages from October 2020, shortly before the presidential election.
On October 15, Floris asked colleagues whether she could confirm that the FBI possessed the laptop. She also forwarded a reporter’s message about the device to FBI leadership and Benavides.
The next day, Benavides suggested language for FBI Director Christopher Wray’s talking points ahead of a call with Senator Mark Warner. His proposed wording addressed questions about whether material appearing in the press might be part of a Russian disinformation effort. It also said the FBI had not reached that conclusion in this specific case.
Floris replied, “Looks good!”
Prosecutors say these exchanges show that both officials knew about the laptop and discussed the FBI’s response. The complaint also cites FBI employees who said the officials knew about the investigations.
Still, the records must be considered in context. They may show awareness or participation without proving that either official controlled the underlying investigations. The government must prove the alleged false statements and the required criminal intent in court.
The task force’s role
The FBI created the Foreign Influence Task Force to counter foreign interference in US elections. Its work initially focused on Russia before expanding to other foreign state actors.
The complaint links the task force to a project called “Round River.” The project examined informant reporting that included allegations about Hunter Biden and concerns that some information could be Russian disinformation.
The filing says the task force shared information with investigative teams, assessed potential foreign influence and considered defensive briefings. It also says the FBI’s Baltimore Field Office involved the task force in investigations concerning Hunter Biden.
That role matters because the prosecution does not rest solely on the officials’ senior positions. Prosecutors point to their own communications and participation to argue that their later testimony was false.
The FBI dissolved the task force in 2025, according to the government’s filing. Its former leaders now face charges over what they told Congress about the unit’s work.
From the laptop to the charges
The case reaches back to the months before the 2020 presidential election.
- December 9, 2019: The FBI’s Baltimore Field Office obtained the contents of a laptop left at a computer repair shop.
- 2019–2020: The FITF developed its Round River project and communicated with FBI teams handling the Hunter Biden investigations.
- August 2020: Task force officials took part in a call with investigators about a proposed defensive briefing.
- October 2020: The laptop became a major public issue in the final weeks of the presidential campaign. The complaint says Floris and Benavides helped prepare internal responses to reporting about the FBI’s possession of the device.
- July 19, 2023: Floris gave a transcribed interview to the House Judiciary Committee.
- September 28, 2023: Benavides gave his interview to the committee.
- October 23, 2026: The Justice Department announced the charges, and both officials appeared in federal court.
The complaint was filed on October 20, 2026, with arrest warrants. The Justice Department announced the case three days later.
Why prosecutors used a criminal complaint
The government began the case with a criminal complaint rather than a grand-jury indictment.
A complaint can start a federal criminal case and support an arrest warrant when sworn evidence establishes probable cause. But it does not replace an indictment when federal law requires one for a felony prosecution to proceed to trial.
The complaint sets out the government’s initial allegations. It is not a verdict, and its supporting statement of facts does not prove that the defendants committed the alleged crimes.
The route to prosecution has also drawn attention because the testimony dates to 2023 and the underlying events go back to 2019 and 2020. At the initial court appearance, Magistrate Judge Zia Faruqui reportedly questioned the timing and the use of a complaint for conduct several years old. He set a preliminary hearing for October 27.
As of October 24, public reporting had not established that a grand jury had returned an indictment. The next hearing was expected to address the evidence and the steps needed to move the case forward. The procedural status should be checked again before publication.
The defendants challenge the prosecution
Floris’ attorneys rejected the accusation. They described her as a dedicated FBI intelligence officer with nearly 20 years of service. They argued that the Justice Department had accused her falsely and questioned why the case emerged so close to the midterm elections.
Benavides’ attorney, Ron Safer, also questioned the delay. He argued that the government had possessed the underlying information for years. At the initial court appearance, the defense sought a prompt opportunity to challenge the allegations.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, says the charges concern alleged false statements to Congress and the need to hold public officials accountable. FBI Director Kash Patel has also linked the case to the administration’s claims about past political weaponization.
The timing is notable. Prosecutors announced the charges on October 23, just 11 days before the November 3, 2026, midterm elections.
The defense argues that this timing raises concerns about political motivation. However, the date alone does not prove that politics drove the prosecution. That claim requires evidence beyond the proximity to an election.
The age of the allegations and the choice to begin with a complaint deserve scrutiny as well. But the passage of time does not, by itself, disprove the charges. The court must assess the evidence and the legal basis for the prosecution.
What the charges do—and do not—prove
The case concerns what Floris and Benavides told Congress about their knowledge of FBI investigations involving Hunter Biden. It does not resolve separate disputes about Hunter Biden’s business dealings, the laptop’s contents or the FBI’s handling of possible foreign disinformation.
The complaint says the FBI obtained the laptop’s contents in December 2019 and investigated Hunter Biden for tax and money-laundering offenses. It also describes internal discussions about whether information in public reports might be linked to Russian influence operations.
Those details do not establish that every claim about the laptop was true, that all its contents had been authenticated at the time, or that the FBI had concluded the material was Russian disinformation.
Indeed, the October 2020 talking points described in the complaint said the FBI had not reached that conclusion in this specific case.
The question before the court is narrower: did either official knowingly make a materially false statement to Congress? The answer must rest on the testimony, records, witness evidence and defendants’ explanations—not on assumptions about other political controversies.
A test for accountability and due process
Congress depends on truthful testimony to investigate government agencies. If officials knowingly withhold important information, they can undermine oversight.
But prosecutors must also meet the law’s requirements and respect the rights of the accused. Politically sensitive cases demand careful scrutiny, not assumptions about guilt or motive.
For now, prosecutors have presented allegations and records they say contradict the officials’ testimony. Both defendants dispute the charges and question the timing. The court proceedings will test the government’s case.
The outcome should depend on the evidence presented in court—not on the politics surrounding the defendants or the wider controversy over Hunter Biden.
Reporting Credit: U.S. Department of Justice — October 23, 2026, announcement of charges and supporting statement of facts in the case against Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides. House Judiciary Committee — transcribed interviews of Floris on July 19, 2023, and Benavides on September 28, 2023, as cited in the government’s filing. Associated Press, Reuters and CBS News — reporting on the charges, defense responses and initial court proceedings.
