James Comey has been formally accused in 2025 of lying under oath to Congress about whether he authorized certain leaks to the press related to FBI investigations, but those allegations are still being litigated and have not been proven in court.

What the accusation is about

In September 2020, Comey testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was questioned about earlier testimony in which he said he had not authorized anyone at the FBI to be an anonymous source in news reports about politically sensitive investigations, including matters involving Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Prosecutors now allege that this was false because he had, in fact, approved a subordinate sharing information with the media in at least one instance.

Key alleged lie under oath

According to the 2025 indictment and related reporting, prosecutors claim:

  • Comey denied under oath that he had authorized someone at the FBI to act as an anonymous source in news stories related to an FBI investigation, sometimes described as the “Arctic haze” leak matter.
  • They say this denial was knowingly false because a former senior FBI official (often identified as then–Deputy Director Andrew McCabe in earlier oversight reports) has said Comey did give him permission to talk to the press in a specific episode that later became the subject of internal investigations.
  • The indictment connects that denial to testimony on September 30, 2020, and charges him with making false statements and obstructing a congressional proceeding.

What Comey and his lawyers say

Comey has pleaded not guilty and insists he did not lie.

His defense team argues, among other things:

  • The questioning in 2020 bundled together different issues (Clinton-related matters, other leak episodes, and anonymous sources), and that the wording prosecutors say he “lied” about was actually phrasing used by senators, not by Comey himself.
  • They plan to rely on a “literal truth” defense, citing the Supreme Court’s Bronston v. United States decision, which says a literally true but potentially misleading statement cannot be perjury.
  • They also point to earlier Justice Department inspector general findings that supported Comey’s version over McCabe’s on at least some points about who authorized what leak, arguing that this undercuts the claim that he clearly lied.

How this connects to older controversies

Before this criminal case, there were already public disputes about whether Comey had been fully candid:

  • A 2018 DOJ inspector general report examined leaks involving McCabe and the Wall Street Journal and discussed conflicting accounts from McCabe and Comey about who authorized media contacts.
  • That report ultimately faulted McCabe for lacking candor under oath, but it also documented the disagreement and has become part of the evidentiary backdrop for the current case against Comey.

However, those earlier watchdog findings did not themselves charge Comey with perjury; the new case is what crystallizes the allegation that his 2020 testimony was criminally false.

Current status and what it means

As of late 2025, Comey is under indictment on:

  • One count of making false statements (for the alleged lie under oath to Congress).
  • One count of obstructing a congressional proceeding (for allegedly using that false testimony to impede the Senate’s inquiry).

He has not been convicted, and the central question in court is whether his denials about authorizing an anonymous FBI source were knowingly and materially false, or whether they were at least arguably true or ambiguous in light of how the questions were framed.

In plain terms: the allegation is that Comey lied when he said he did not authorize an FBI subordinate to leak information to the media, but whether that was truly a lie, a misunderstanding, or a technically accurate answer is exactly what the trial is supposed to decide.

Information gathered from public forums or data available on the internet and portrayed here.