DOJ Charges Two Former FBI Officials With Lying to Congress on Hunter Biden Laptop

The charges mark a rare instance of federal prosecutors pursuing senior intelligence officials for congressional testimony, raising questions about oversight accountability regardless of which...

The Department of Justice has filed criminal charges against two former senior FBI counterintelligence officials, Nikki Floris and Bradley Benavides, alleging they made false statements to Congress during 2023 testimony related to the Hunter Biden laptop investigation, according to CBS News.

The charges stem from testimony both officials gave before congressional committees in 2023, when lawmakers were examining how the FBI handled evidence from a laptop associated with Hunter Biden, son of then-President Joe Biden. The specific false statements alleged in each case have not been fully disclosed in public charging documents reviewed by this publication as of October 23, 2026. The precise court filings, including indictments or criminal informations, would detail the exact statements prosecutors contend were false.

Floris and Benavides each held senior counterintelligence roles at the FBI at the time of the laptop investigation. Counterintelligence divisions at the Bureau are responsible for assessing foreign influence operations and protecting classified national security material. The Hunter Biden laptop became a significant point of congressional inquiry after questions arose in 2020 about whether the FBI had suppressed or downplayed information related to its contents before the presidential election that year.

Lying to Congress is a federal offense under 18 U.S.C. Section 1001, which prohibits making materially false statements to federal authorities, including legislative branch investigators. Convictions under this statute carry a potential sentence of up to five years in federal prison per count. The number of counts facing Floris and Benavides has not been confirmed in publicly available records as of the publication of this article.

Congressional false-statement prosecutions are relatively uncommon. The Congressional Research Service has documented fewer than two dozen successful federal prosecutions under Section 1001 arising specifically from congressional testimony over the past four decades. High-profile examples include the 2019 conviction of Roger Stone, a Republican political consultant, for lying to the House Intelligence Committee, and the 2023 indictment of former Trump advisor Peter Navarro for contempt of Congress, a related but distinct charge.

The charges against Floris and Benavides arrive ahead of the November 3, 2026 midterm elections, a timing that has drawn attention from both Democratic and Republican members of Congress, though neither party's leadership has issued formal statements on the charges as of press time. The DOJ has not publicly linked the timing of the charges to any electoral calendar.

The House Intelligence Committee, which conducted some of the 2023 hearings at issue, has oversight jurisdiction over FBI counterintelligence operations. The top Democrat on that committee stated this week that lawmakers have prepared for a range of post-election situations, per CBS News, though that statement was made in the context of foreign interference concerns and not directly in response to the Floris and Benavides charges.

The FBI declined to comment on the charges, which is standard practice when former employees face criminal proceedings. The DOJ's press office confirmed the charges exist but directed inquiries to the publicly filed court documents. Attorneys for Floris and Benavides had not issued public statements as of October 23, 2026.

Several facts remain unknown in the public record. The full charging documents, including the specific testimony passages prosecutors allege were false and the precise dates of the alleged offenses, have not been released in a form this publication has reviewed. It is also unknown whether either defendant has entered a plea. The court docket number and the district in which the case was filed would be the primary public records needed to answer these questions. Additionally, whether a special counsel or the main DOJ criminal division is leading the prosecution has not been confirmed publicly.