From the Oval Office to a Guilty Plea: Trump's Former National Security Advisor John Bolton Agrees to Felony Charge
He once sat in the most powerful room in the world. He knew America's secrets. He advised the President of the United States on matters of war, intelligence, and national security. And now, John Bolton — Donald Trump's former National Security Advisor — has agreed to plead guilty to a federal felony.
The news broke Thursday, sending shockwaves through Washington and beyond.
Bolton reached a plea deal over mishandling sensitive national security information, agreeing to plead guilty to one felony count of illegal retention of classified national security information. He also agreed to pay a fine of more than $2 million.
Bolton faces up to 60 months in prison for the single felony count he is pleading guilty to, though the plea deal may allow him to avoid prison time entirely.
For anyone who has followed the dramatic, bitter relationship between Donald Trump and John Bolton, this moment feels like the final chapter of one of Washington's most explosive personal feuds.
Bolton served as Trump's National Security Advisor from 2018 to 2019 — one of the most powerful positions in the entire US government. He sat in on classified briefings. He advised the president on nuclear threats, military operations, and covert intelligence. He was, by every measure, an insider at the highest level.
Then Trump fired him. And everything changed.
Bolton struck back by writing a tell-all book — "The Room Where It Happened" — filled with damaging accounts of Trump's behavior behind closed doors. Trump called him a liar, a traitor, and worse. Bolton called Trump unfit for office and dangerous to American democracy. The two men became bitter enemies in full public view.
Bolton is now the first successful case in Trump's campaign of retribution against those he perceives to be his political enemies. Two other prominent Trump critics — former FBI Director James Comey and New York Attorney General Letitia James — were also indicted by the Trump Justice Department. But Bolton's guilty plea makes him the first to actually be convicted.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the count Bolton is pleading guilty to involves keeping classified national security information in personal diaries. Bolton is expected to maintain that he did not take documents with classification markings out of government offices, and that no classified information appeared in his published memoir.
The only people who were reportedly exposed to the sensitive information were Bolton's wife and daughter.
To his supporters, Bolton is a victim — a man being prosecuted not for genuine crimes but for daring to speak the truth about a vindictive president. They argue that the charges were motivated entirely by Trump's personal anger, not by a good-faith pursuit of justice.
To Trump's supporters, the guilty plea is proof of exactly the opposite. Bolton, they say, betrayed his president, leaked secrets, and used his access to power for personal gain. His conviction, in their eyes, is long overdue justice.
A conviction hearing has been scheduled for June 26, when Bolton is expected to formally enter his guilty plea before a federal judge.
What happens after that remains uncertain. Will the judge impose prison time — or allow Bolton to walk free with just the financial penalty? Will Trump comment publicly, declaring victory over one of his most hated adversaries? And will this guilty plea embolden the Trump Justice Department to push even harder against the other targets on its list?
For Vietnamese Americans watching from across the United States, this story carries a deeper meaning. It is a reminder that in America, no one — not even those who once held the highest offices in the land — is above the law. Or at least, that is what the justice system is supposed to guarantee.
Whether this conviction represents true justice or political revenge is a question every American must answer for themselves.
But one thing is certain: the man who once knew all of Trump's secrets just admitted, in a court of law, that he broke the law.
And in Washington, nobody is quite sure what comes next.
Sources: CNN, ABC News, UPI, CNBC, PBS NewsHour
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
