Federal prosecutors are expected to ask a grand jury to return an indictment against John Bolton, the former national security adviser, today, according to sources briefed on the matter who spoke to CBS News. The development, if confirmed by the Justice Department, would represent one of the highest-profile criminal referrals involving a former senior administration official in recent years and could reverberate through Washington's legal and political institutions.

The Justice Department customarily declines to discuss ongoing grand jury matters, and officials have not publicly confirmed the reporting. An indictment — should one be returned and unsealed — would trigger arraignment proceedings and likely immediate legal maneuvering, including motions to dismiss and challenges over classified materials and executive privilege if relevant. The contours of any potential charges remain unclear in the reporting available so far, and the sources did not disclose the specific allegations being pursued.

The timing of the expected action arrives amid heightened scrutiny of executive branch secrecy and congressional oversight. Representative Jim Himes told viewers on Face the Nation that Congress had been told "nothing" about recent strikes in Venezuela, underscoring a broader concern among lawmakers about being kept out of sensitive national-security decisions. That sentiment feeds into a long-running debate over how and when elected officials are briefed on clandestine operations and the balance between secrecy and accountability.

Senator Chris Murphy added to that tenor on the same program, saying the U.S. needs "two parties" negotiating on foreign-policy responses — a remark that frames the possible indictment within the larger context of partisan strain over oversight and the conduct of foreign affairs. Democrats and Republicans alike face choices about whether legal action against a former official will prompt statutory reforms to intelligence oversight or instead harden partisan divides around prosecutorial independence.

Domestically, the unfolding legal news intersects with other political pressures. New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg’s office and several federal prosecutors have faced scrutiny over high-profile investigations amid a backdrop of budgetary strain; Representative Mike Vance attributed recent federal layoffs to the shutdown "chaos," reflecting institutional stress that could complicate resource allocation for complex national-security probes.

International developments also form part of the immediate context. Egyptian officials have expressed confidence on a Gaza plan while negotiators reported progress toward the release of hostages expected Monday, illustrating how U.S. legal and political turbulence occurs alongside volatile diplomacy.

Legal experts caution that an indictment is not a conviction and that grand jury decisions can hinge on narrow factual and legal determinations. Nonetheless, the reported move by the Justice Department would renew attention on the department's handling of cases involving national-security information and former officials, potentially prompting fresh congressional hearings and legal precedent-setting litigation. For a department that emphasizes impartiality, the challenge will be to proceed with transparency and adherence to norms while withstanding accusations of political motivation from both sides of the aisle.