What is the current status of the FBI's probe into Hunter Biden's laptop?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The FBI has possessed the laptop since December 2019 and investigators initially concluded the device “was genuinely his and did not seem to have been tampered with or manipulated” [1] [2]. As of 2025, the FBI’s handling of that laptop remains a political flashpoint: Senate Republicans are demanding internal FBI records and messages, while outside groups have filed FOIA suits seeking more transparency [3] [4].
1. What the FBI says it did — and when
Public reporting and subsequent summaries state agents seized the device from the Delaware repair shop in December 2019 under the authority of a Wilmington grand jury subpoena, and FBI investigators concluded early on that the laptop was Hunter Biden’s and showed no obvious tampering [1] [2]. Those facts are the baseline for both the bureau’s investigators and outside critics who argue the FBI has had the material for years [5].
2. The probe’s legal and investigatory posture
Multiple outlets and documents describe an ongoing federal interest in Hunter Biden’s finances and foreign dealings that predates and later encompassed the laptop materials; reporting indicates the FBI’s investigation into Hunter Biden expanded to tax, foreign lobbying and related matters [6] [7]. The precise current prosecutorial posture — indictments, active charges, or closed components tied specifically to the laptop — is not detailed in the provided sources; available sources do not mention specific, up-to-date charging decisions tied solely to the laptop.
3. Political aftermath: congressional demands and FOIA fights
Republican senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson have formally demanded the FBI turn over all internal communications and records relating to the bureau’s handling of the laptop, citing newly published FBI chat messages and alleging suppression of discussion in 2020 [3]. Conservative watchdogs such as Judicial Watch have filed FOIA lawsuits seeking FBI records, investigative reports and communications about the laptop [4]. These moves frame the issue as a transparency and potential-bias dispute, not solely a criminal-investigative matter [3] [4].
4. New messages and allegations of a gag or coordination
Reporting in 2025 surfaced additional FBI messages that critics say reveal a “gag order” or coordinated approach to the laptop’s public credibility in October 2020; proponents of transparency point to those messages as evidence the FBI limited public discussion while possessing the device [8]. Republicans in oversight roles have used that reporting to argue the bureau obscured the status or significance of the material prior to the election [8].
5. Competing narratives about disinformation and authenticity
A group of former intelligence officials publicly asserted in 2020 that the laptop “has all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation,” but later reporting and investigations found no public evidence that the laptop itself was Russian disinformation; by May 2023, reporting concluded no public evidence had emerged to support the disinformation claim, while earlier FBI investigators had judged the drive authentic [2] [1]. That split—former intel officials warning of possible influence operations versus later forensic and reporting conclusions—drives much of the political dispute [6] [2].
6. Personnel controversies and internal reviews
Individual FBI personnel decisions have become part of the story: reporting includes allegations about agents reassigned or retiring amid scrutiny, and assertions that internal bias reviews or special counsel attention were underway for particular employees [9]. The sources show personnel disputes are being used by political actors to argue either bureau politicization or vindication, depending on perspective [9].
7. What reporting does not say (key gaps)
Available sources do not provide a definitive, up-to-the-minute account of whether the FBI’s laptop-related inquiry has produced indictments tied solely to materials from the laptop, nor do they provide final outcomes of all internal reviews, FOIA litigation results, or any grand jury determinations after 2019 [1] [4]. Readers should treat assertions about “the probe’s current status” as contested and evolving in public records and political forums [3] [4].
8. Why this still matters politically
The laptop episode sits at the intersection of criminal investigation, media decisions, counterintelligence concern about foreign influence, and partisan oversight. Congressional demands and FOIA litigation seek to convert internal FBI records into political leverage; supporters of the oversight actions present them as transparency efforts, while critics say they are politically motivated efforts to delegitimize the bureau [3] [4] [5].
Conclusion — where things stand: reporting and public documents make clear the FBI took possession of the device in 2019 and assessed it as authentic, and that its handling has become the subject of sustained oversight demands and litigation [1] [3] [4]. Definitive statements about indictments or the final legal status of laptop-derived evidence are not found in the supplied reporting; the matter remains publicly contested and under active review by political actors and litigants [4] [3].