On September 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice indicted former FBI Director James Comey on two criminal counts: obstruction of a congressional proceeding and making false statements to Congress. The dramatic development has fueled speculation about whether Attorney General Pam Bondi — long under pressure from former President Donald Trump to target his political adversaries — plans to pursue additional charges against Comey. In recent statements, Bondi has offered cautious signals, while DOJ insiders and observers weigh the political and legal risks.

This investigative report unpacks what Bondi has revealed, the reservations within the DOJ, how external pressure is influencing the dynamics, and the prospects that more charges against Comey might be on the way.

The Legal Context & Pressure Background

The September Indictment

The charges against Comey relate to his 2020 congressional testimony. Prosecutors allege he lied to Congress about whether he had authorized leaks to the media, and that he obstructed an investigation by providing misleading statements. The indictment came after mounting pressure from Trump, who publicly demanded that Bondi prosecute Comey, former New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Sen. Adam Schiff.

In parallel, the DOJ replaced the U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia — a key jurisdiction in which a Comey case would likely be brought — with Lindsey Halligan, a former Trump personal attorney with limited direct prosecutorial experience. Some observers see this as part of the political maneuvering to enable more aggressive prosecutions.

Bondi’s Role & the “Weaponization Working Group”

In February 2025, upon becoming Attorney General, Bondi established a Weaponization Working Group within the DOJ, ostensibly to review politically motivated prosecutions. Critics argue this group could be used to legitimize aggressive legal actions against Trump’s opponents, including Comey.

Thus, Bondi enters the Comey scene with both institutional authority and high political expectations. The question is: has she committed to charging Comey more — or at least left the door open?

What Bondi Has Actually Revealed

Public Statements & Denials

In a television appearance on CNN, Bondi was asked directly whether she knew of an impending indictment:

Reporter: Could there be an indictment on James Comey? … Madam Attorney General?Bondi: We can’t comment on that.”

This is the standard DOJ posture: decline to confirm or deny ongoing investigations.

Earlier, when confronted with a report that Comey had ordered “honeypot” undercover agents targeting Trump’s campaign in 2015–2016, Bondi responded:

Jesse, I don’t know anything about what you’re saying about James Comey right now. Don’t know anything about that.”

That denial referred to a specific, older allegation — not necessarily to the current inquiry or indictment.

Implicit Signals in Indictment Announcement

When the DOJ announced Comey’s indictment, Bondi issued a short public statement:

No one is above the law. Today’s indictment reflects this Department of Justice’s commitment to holding those who abuse positions of power accountable for misleading the American people. We will follow the facts in this case.”

While strong in tone, Bondi’s choice of wording — particularly “we will follow the facts” — stops short of promising further charges beyond what has already been filed.

Reservations & Internal Pushbacks

Sources inside the DOJ have said that Bondi and some federal prosecutors harbor deep reservations about expanding charges against Comey. According to CNN, prosecutors in the Eastern District of Virginia circulated a memo warning that evidence to support further counts (beyond the current indictment) is weak. Bondi is said to share those concerns, even as she believes an indictment was possible.

Internal critics have reportedly told The Daily Beast that the Comey indictment is seen by some DOJ career staff as among the “worst abuses in DOJ history,” raising questions about the political pressures behind it. That internal turbulence suggests that any push for more charges could heighten internal dissent.

In addition, The Daily Beast reported that Bondi resisted Trump’s demands to replace the Virginia prosecutor — at least temporarily pushing back, according to a New York Times analysis. That suggests Bondi may be attempting to preserve some degree of institutional autonomy.

The Likelihood of Additional Charges: What the Evidence & Experts Suggest

Practical and Statutory Constraints

Statute of limitations: Comey’s alleged conduct dates from 2020, and some claims tied to earlier periods would face legal time limits or require extraordinary justification.

Burden of proof: To bring more charges, prosecutors must believe they have sufficient admissible evidence to survive motions to dismiss or acquittals. Insider warnings from Virginia suggest prosecutors doubt that strength.

Legal defensibility: Given the high political profile, further charges must be carefully defensible; weak charges could expose the DOJ to accusations of politically motivated prosecutions.

Political Risk & Institutional Blowback

Expanding the case against a former FBI director could deepen allegations that the DOJ is weaponized by Trump. Bondi already faces criticism internally.

If new charges fail in court, the political cost is steep — undermining DOJ credibility and strengthening arguments of misuse of prosecutorial power.

Some observers see the existing two-count indictment as ambitious enough; adding additional counts might invite overreach accusations.

External Pressure & Possible Incentives

Trump and his allies continue to pressure Bondi publicly to target more figures, including Comey.

If Bondi can secure a broader legal sweep, it could bolster her support among MAGA-aligned constituencies.

But even with external pressure, the legal and institutional pushback suggests that further charges will only be brought with strong evidence and careful calibration.

What Bondi Could Do, Given Her Position

Bondi has several options in how to handle the Comey matter going forward. Her choices will reflect the balance she seeks between political expectations and legal prudence.

Bondi’s public statements lean toward caution. By not promising anything beyond what’s already filed and expressing reservations held by prosecutors, she maintains flexibility.

What to Watch Next

DOJ / Bondi statements: Any future public remarks by Bondi, Chief Deputy officials, or DOJ press releases may hint at new indictments.

Grand jury return actions: Whether the Virginia grand jury returns additional counts beyond the current indictment will be telling.

Prosecutorial memos: Internal memos in Eastern Virginia or national DOJ may leak, revealing how aggressively the case is viewed.

Judicial motions / pretrial proceedings: If defense motions challenge the current count, DOJ may clarify whether they intend to expand scope.

Trump pressure campaigns: More public pressure from Trump or MAGA figures may force Bondi’s hand or shift her posture.

DOJ staffing moves: Changes in prosecutors, leadership, or legal teams could signal new phases.

Conclusion

Pam Bondi has not explicitly revealed that more charges against James Comey are guaranteed. Instead, her public posture has been deliberately cautious: decline to confirm, express a commitment to “follow the facts,” and allow for prosecutorial discretion. Meanwhile, internal sources suggest she and some prosecutors have serious reservations about the strength of additional charges.