Former FBI Task Force Leaders Charged with Lying to Congress About Hunter Biden Investigations

Two former senior FBI officials who led the bureau's Foreign Influence Task Force (FITF) have been charged with making false statements to Congress regarding their involvement in investigations into Hunter Biden's laptop and related matters during the 2020 election period. Nikki Cole Floris, 46, and Bradley Benavides, 56, each face one count of lying to Congress under 18 U.S.C. § 1001(a)(2), according to a criminal complaint filed in the District of Columbia.[1][2]

The charges, announced on October 23, 2026, by U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro, stem from 2023 testimony before the House Judiciary Committee. Both officials denied that the FITF played any role in the Hunter Biden probes and claimed limited or no knowledge of the laptop. Prosecutors allege documentary evidence, contemporaneous communications, and witness accounts contradict these statements. Floris reportedly discussed the investigations routinely within the task force, while Benavides allegedly discussed the laptop internally despite testifying he learned of it only via Wikipedia in 2023.[3][4]

FBI Director Kash Patel highlighted the case on social media, noting the FITF's role in countering foreign influence and its interactions with social media companies ahead of the 2020 election. He also referenced private claims by Floris of "running a shadow government" during that period. The task force, established in 2017 under Christopher Wray, was later disbanded. The charges come amid broader scrutiny of the FBI's handling of the laptop story, which the New York Post published in October 2020.[5]

Defense counsel for Floris described her as a "patriot" with nearly 20 years of service and called the charges politically motivated, filed on the "say-so of politicians, not on the facts." The timing, less than two weeks before the November 2026 midterms, has drawn attention to ongoing partisan debates over institutional accountability in election-related matters.[6]

This development connects to wider patterns of oversight on federal agencies handling politically sensitive investigations, echoing critiques of concentrated institutional power and selective enforcement that resonate in discussions of corporate and governmental influence.