# Who will be charged with a federal crime in 2026?

Before Jan 1, 2027

Updated: April 28, 2026

Category: Politics

Tags: SCOTUS & courts

HTML: /markets/politics/scotus-courts/who-will-be-charged-with-a-federal-crime-in-2026/

## Short Answer

**Key takeaway.** Both the **model** and the **market** overwhelmingly agree that James Comey will be charged with a federal crime in 2026, with only minor residual uncertainty.

## Key Claims (January 2026)

**- - Project 2025 policy papers do not name specific prosecutorial targets.** - Federal statutes of limitation generally set a five-year deadline for charges.
- A federal grand jury is investigating a past Adam Schiff criminal probe.
- Public information does not identify individuals under DOJ watchdog investigation.
- **Market** participants currently show a very high expectation of a charge.

### Why This Matters (GEO)

- AI agents extract claims, not arguments.
- Improves citation probability in summaries and answer cards.
- Enables fact stitching across multiple sources.

## Executive Verdict

**Key takeaway.** **Market** at **98.9%** slightly exceeds **model**'s **98.6%** despite research not identifying specific prosecution targets.

### Who Wins and Why

| Outcome | Market | Model | Why |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Tim Walz | 14.0% | 4.6% | No current public federal investigations or significant legal controversies are widely reported for him. |
| Ilhan Omar | 47.0% | 24.3% | Past allegations related to campaign finance and immigration have drawn federal ethics and prosecutorial attention. |
| James Comey | 98.9% | 98.6% | His past actions and decisions as FBI Director have been subject to intense political and legal scrutiny. |

## Model vs Market

| Outcome | Market Probability | Octagon Model Probability |
| --- | --- | --- |
| Tim Walz | 14.0% | 4.6% |
| Ilhan Omar | 47.0% | 24.3% |
| James Comey | 98.9% | 98.6% |
| Barack Obama | 8.6% | 2.5% |
| Bill Clinton | 9.8% | 2.5% |
| Letitia James | 44.0% | 31.0% |
| Hillary Clinton | 14.0% | 6.3% |
| Jack Smith | 25.0% | 13.7% |
| Adam Schiff | 23.0% | 12.2% |
| John Brennan | 68.0% | 58.5% |
| Anthony Fauci | 11.0% | 4.6% |
| Pam Bondi | 7.5% | 2.9% |
| James Clapper | 29.0% | 17.0% |
| Jerome Powell | 27.0% | 15.3% |
| Mark Kelly | 9.3% | 3.7% |
| Jacob Frey | 9.0% | 3.6% |
| Gustavo Petro | 21.0% | 10.8% |
| Hunter Biden | 11.0% | 4.6% |
| Liz Cheney | 11.0% | 4.6% |
| Joe Biden | 6.4% | 2.4% |
| Keith Ellison | 19.0% | 9.4% |
| Mark Milley | 17.0% | 8.1% |
| Chris Christie | 6.2% | 2.3% |
| Christopher Wray | 14.0% | 6.3% |
| Tucker Carlson | 11.0% | 4.6% |
| Peter Strzok | 23.0% | 12.2% |
| Fani Willis | 26.0% | 14.5% |
| Alvin Bragg | 14.0% | 6.3% |
| Joe Kent | 17.0% | 8.1% |
| Raúl Castro | 24.0% | 13.0% |
| Lisa Cook | 12.0% | 5.1% |
| Elissa Slotkin | 4.3% | 1.5% |
| Chris Krebs | 15.0% | 6.9% |

- Expiration: January 1, 2027

## Market Behavior & Price Dynamics

This market shows a strong upward trend, starting at 37.0% and currently trading at a high of 98.3%. The price action was marked by extreme volatility in mid-April, beginning with a 24.0 percentage point spike to 64.0% on April 15th, followed by a sharp 22.0 point reversal to 42.0% the next day. The most significant movement occurred on April 28th, when the probability surged 53.3 percentage points from 45.0% to its current high of 98.3%. This final spike was accompanied by exceptionally high trading volume, with nearly 14,000 contracts traded on that day alone, representing over half of the market's total volume.

While the provided context does not specify the external events causing these price swings, the trading patterns reveal a clear shift in market conviction. The volatility on April 15th and 16th suggests a period of uncertainty and conflicting information, with traders rapidly reassessing the probability. However, the massive volume accompanying the April 28th spike indicates that a decisive event or piece of information entered the market, leading to a strong consensus. This high-volume move obliterated previous resistance levels and established a new floor near what is now the market's ceiling.

The chart indicates that market sentiment has undergone a dramatic transformation. After fluctuating in a wide range that suggested significant disagreement among participants, the market has now reached a state of overwhelming certainty. The current price of 98.3% implies that traders believe a federal charge is a near-inevitable outcome before the January 1, 2027 resolution date. The price action has moved from speculative uncertainty to a firm, high-conviction consensus.

## Significant Price Movements

#### 📈 April 28, 2026: 53.3pp spike

Price increased from 45.0% to 98.3%

**Outcome:** James Comey

**What happened:** No supporting research available for this anomaly.

#### 📉 April 16, 2026: 22.0pp drop

Price decreased from 64.0% to 42.0%

**Outcome:** James Comey

**What happened:** No supporting research available for this anomaly.

#### 📈 April 15, 2026: 24.0pp spike

Price increased from 40.0% to 64.0%

**Outcome:** James Comey

**What happened:** No supporting research available for this anomaly.

## Contract Snapshot

The market resolves to YES if Ilhan Omar is formally charged with a federal crime after its issuance (January 12, 2026) and before January 1, 2027. Formal charges, which include military court charges or pre-trial diversion agreements, must be new filings and count even if later dismissed; however, arrests, civil suits, administrative actions, minor traffic violations, sealed charges, or reinstated prior charges do not qualify. The market closes early upon charges or by December 31, 2026, resolving to NO if no qualifying charges occur, with major news outlets providing verification.

## Market Discussion

Traders are primarily focused on Ilhan Omar's potential for federal charges, with her "Yes" probability currently at 47% and rising. The key argument for a "Yes" resolution revolves around recent reports and discussions concerning alleged discrepancies in her financial disclosures, with some traders citing a reported change from $30 million to $90,000 as a significant factor. There is no notable discussion or specific arguments presented for or against charges for Letitia James or Jack Smith.

## Market Data

| Contract | Yes Bid | Yes Ask | Last Price | Volume | Open Interest |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
| Alvin Bragg | 9.3% | 14% | 14% | $2,506.07 | $1,193 |
| Anthony Fauci | 20% | 23% | 11% | $14,002.98 | $7,156.47 |
| Adam Schiff | 21% | 24% | 23% | $20,837.96 | $6,573.86 |
| Bill Clinton | 7% | 9.8% | 9.8% | $34,684.97 | $10,502.29 |
| Barack Obama | 8.6% | 11% | 8.6% | $48,200.49 | $25,941.86 |
| Chris Christie | 3% | 6.1% | 6.2% | $3,670 | $1,660 |
| Chris Krebs | 15% | 16% | 15% | $789.51 | $437 |
| Christopher Wray | 12% | 14% | 14% | $3,542 | $1,938 |
| Elissa Slotkin | 4% | 12% | 4.3% | $996 | $467 |
| Fani Willis | 24% | 26% | 26% | $2,720.5 | $1,940.12 |
| Gustavo Petro | 18% | 23% | 21% | $6,740 | $2,998 |
| Hunter Biden | 8% | 11% | 11% | $6,682.8 | $3,188.78 |
| Hillary Clinton | 11% | 14% | 14% | $27,261.94 | $12,558.24 |
| Ilhan Omar | 46% | 47% | 47% | $54,287.75 | $24,985.22 |
| Joe Biden | 2.5% | 6.4% | 6.4% | $5,080.39 | $2,602.65 |
| John Brennan | 67% | 72% | 68% | $20,282.37 | $10,761.53 |
| James Clapper | 26% | 29% | 29% | $13,167.45 | $4,075.21 |
| James Comey | 98.1% | 98.9% | 98.9% | $49,985.85 | $28,287.53 |
| Jacob Frey | 8% | 9.9% | 9% | $6,854.72 | $3,493 |
| Joe Kent | 12% | 17% | 17% | $1,129.89 | $860.89 |
| Jerome Powell | 4% | 7% | 27% | $13,095.18 | $7,246.43 |
| Jack Smith | 28% | 29% | 25% | $23,305.31 | $10,511.77 |
| Keith Ellison | 11% | 17% | 19% | $4,682.51 | $2,328.92 |
| Liz Cheney | 7.2% | 11% | 11% | $5,640.94 | $3,341.24 |
| Lisa Cook | 7.1% | 12% | 12% | $1,081 | $130 |
| Letitia James | 44% | 47% | 44% | $31,563.46 | $9,267.61 |
| Mark Kelly | 7.1% | 9.3% | 9.3% | $9,379.79 | $4,002.79 |
| Mark Milley | 17% | 18% | 17% | $3,700.72 | $2,103.8 |
| Pam Bondi | 2.8% | 7.6% | 7.5% | $13,502.87 | $7,269.23 |
| Peter Strzok | 19% | 23% | 23% | $3,029.53 | $2,295.57 |
| Raúl Castro | 26% | 29% | 24% | $1,123.41 | $880.27 |
| Tucker Carlson | 3% | 10% | 11% | $3,233.2 | $2,255.2 |
| Tim Walz | 12% | 15% | 14% | $219,009.88 | $64,982.83 |

## Are Specific Individuals Named as Prosecutorial Targets in Project 2025?

Specific individuals named | No specific individuals explicitly named as prosecutorial targets [[^]](https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf), [[^]](https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2025/04/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf), [[^]](https://seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/if-we-cant-prosecute-trumps-foes-well-shame-them-doj-official-says-analysis) |
Target categories mentioned | Officials from FBI and intelligence agencies, attorneys pursuing cases against Trump, disloyal civil servants [[^]](https://seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/if-we-cant-prosecute-trumps-foes-well-shame-them-doj-official-says-analysis), [[^]](https://resistandrise.blue/p/the-enemies-list-part-1), [[^]](https://thepreamble.com/p/the-new-enemies-list) |
Project 2025 focus | Investigating and prosecuting perceived abuses of power within federal agencies [[^]](https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf), [[^]](https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2025/04/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf) |

**Project 2025 policy papers do not explicitly name specific individuals for prosecution**

Project 2025 policy papers do not explicitly name specific individuals for prosecution. Research indicates that while the Heritage Foundation's 'Project 2025' framework discusses intentions to pursue investigations and potential prosecutions, these discussions consistently refer to categories of individuals or types of actions rather than identifying specific people [[^]](https://static.heritage.org/project2025/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf), [[^]](https://www.employmentlawinsights.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/36/2025/04/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf). Analyses by organizations such as the Brennan Center for Justice and American Progress further describe general strategies for criminal justice and enforcement within Project 2025's scope, but do not name particular individuals for prosecution [[^]](https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/project-2025s-plan-criminal-justice-under-trump), [[^]](https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-compels-local-prosecutors-to-enforce-extreme-right-wing-laws/).

Legal advisors and related discussions identify broad categories for potential action. For instance, a legal advisor associated with Project 2025 indicated that "Trump's foes" could be prosecuted or "shamed," specifying categories such as "officials from the FBI and intelligence agencies" and "attorneys who have pursued criminal cases against Trump." However, this advisor explicitly "did not specify who would be targeted" by name [[^]](https://seattletimes.com/nation-world/nation-politics/if-we-cant-prosecute-trumps-foes-well-shame-them-doj-official-says-analysis). Similarly, articles referring to an "enemies list" compiled by Project 2025 describe it as targeting "officials," "civil servants," "prosecutors," and "members of Congress" viewed as disloyal or unfavorable. These discussions consistently describe potential targets in general terms rather than explicitly naming specific individuals for prosecution within the provided information [[^]](https://resistandrise.blue/p/the-enemies-list-part-1), [[^]](https://thepreamble.com/p/the-new-enemies-list).

## When Do Federal Crime Statutes of Limitations Expire for Key Figures?

General Statute of Limitations | Five years for most federal crimes [[^]](https://www.jamespaynelaw.com/blog/federal-crimes-statute-of-limitations/) |
Crime Occurrence Window | July 1, 2021 - March 1, 2022 for 2026-2027 expiration [[^]](https://www.jamespaynelaw.com/blog/federal-crimes-statute-of-limitations/) |
Key Figures & Relevance | Fani Willis allegations (2021-2022) potentially relevant [[^]](https://newsweek.com/fani-willis-department-justice-inconsistencies-federal-funds-1888876); Clinton/Comey/Strzok known past allegations pre-2021, unlikely to expire 2026-2027 [[^]](https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/newly-revealed-records-show-how-probe-into-clinton-foundation-ended-5288095) |

**The general federal statute of limitations typically sets a five-year deadline for charges**

The general federal statute of limitations typically sets a five-year deadline for charges. For most non-capital offenses, including many white-collar and public corruption crimes, the statute of limitations is five years from the date the offense was committed [[^]](https://www.jamespaynelaw.com/blog/federal-crimes-statute-of-limitations/). To expire between July 1, 2026, and March 1, 2027, the alleged criminal activity would need to have occurred between July 1, 2021, and March 1, 2022. This window is particularly significant because a prediction **market** resolves before January 1, 2027, requiring any potential charge to be made by then to impact the **market**.

Fani Willis's office faces scrutiny over federal grant funds. Reports from April and May 2024 indicate that the Department of Justice discovered "inconsistencies" in the handling of federal grant money by her office, with a whistleblower alleging misuse of funds [[^]](https://newsweek.com/fani-willis-department-justice-inconsistencies-federal-funds-1888876). If federal offenses related to the alleged misuse of these funds, such as theft or embezzlement from programs receiving federal funds, mail fraud, or false statements, were to have occurred between July 2021 and early 2022, their typical five-year statutes of limitations would expire between July 2026 and early 2027 [[^]](https://www.jamespaynelaw.com/blog/federal-crimes-statute-of-limitations/). This scenario would establish a "charge-or-drop" deadline either within or shortly after the **market**'s specified timeframe.

Past allegations against Clintons and Comey/Strzok fall outside the relevant timeframe. For figures like the Clintons and James Comey/Peter Strzok, the potential federal crimes "most often associated" with them in public discourse generally relate to activities that transpired well before the July 2021 to March 2022 window. For example, investigations into the Clinton Foundation's activities have reportedly concluded [[^]](https://www.theepochtimes.com/us/newly-revealed-records-show-how-probe-into-clinton-foundation-ended-5288095), and the Department of Justice Inspector General's examination concerning the FISA process involving Comey and Strzok was published in December 2019, focusing on events around 2016-2017 [[^]](https://www.justice.gov/storage/120919-examination.pdf). Consequently, for these specific, publicly known past allegations, the five-year federal statute of limitations would have already expired, making charges related to those events unlikely to fall within the July 2026 to March 2027 expiration period.

## Are Grand Juries Investigating Adam Schiff, Christopher Wray, or Jack Smith?

Adam Schiff Probe Status | Federal grand jury investigating handling of past criminal probe [[^]](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/federal-grand-jury-investigating-handling-adam-schiff-criminal-probe-rcna244997) |
Jurisdiction of Schiff Probe | Likely Northern District of California [[^]](https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/national-international/federal-grand-jury-investigation-doj-adam-schiff-probe/3984584/?noamp=mobile) |
Wray/Smith Grand Juries | No grand juries linked to official conduct indicated [[^]](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Wray%20SJQ.pdf) |

**A federal grand jury is investigating the handling of a past Adam Schiff criminal probe**

A federal grand jury is investigating the handling of a past Adam Schiff criminal probe. This investigation, focusing on how a previous criminal probe concerning Adam Schiff was managed rather than his current official conduct, appears to be within the jurisdiction of the Northern District of California, as indicated by regional news coverage [[^]](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/federal-grand-jury-investigating-handling-adam-schiff-criminal-probe-rcna244997). The grand jury's activity has reportedly experienced stalls [[^]](https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/justice-department/federal-grand-jury-investigating-handling-adam-schiff-criminal-probe-rcna244997).

No grand juries are directly linked to Wray or Smith's official conduct. Available research does not indicate any currently empaneled grand juries whose subpoenas or witness lists are directly linked to the official conduct of Christopher Wray or Jack Smith. References to Christopher Wray were found in a Senate Judiciary Committee questionnaire and a court filing in an unrelated case [[^]](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/Wray%20SJQ.pdf). Similarly, the source related to Jack Smith is a court filing pertaining to a different legal matter [[^]](https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flsd.649714/gov.uscourts.flsd.649714.190.0.pdf).

## Do DOJ OIG/OPR Investigations Disclose Specific Individuals or Referrals?

OIG Semiannual Report Period | April 1, 2025 – September 30, 2025 [[^]](https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig-releases-semiannual-report-congress-period-april-1-2025-september-30-2025) |
Another OIG Semiannual Report Period | October 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025 [[^]](https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig-releases-semiannual-report-congress-period-october-1-2024-march-31-2025) |
OPR Investigative Summaries Available | For 2025 and 2026 [[^]](https://www.justice.gov/opr/2026-investigative-summary-2) |

**Public information does not identify individuals under DOJ watchdog investigation**

Public information does not identify individuals under DOJ watchdog investigation. The Department of Justice's Office of the Inspector General (OIG) and Office of Professional Responsibility (OPR) do not publicly disclose the status of investigations or criminal referrals concerning specific individuals without a provided list. Publicly available reports from these offices consistently avoid naming individuals under investigation or detailing specific criminal referrals to the Public Integrity Section [[^]](https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-pin). Consequently, it is not possible to determine the status of active OIG or OPR investigations into unnamed individuals, or whether any formal criminal referrals have been made to the DOJ's Public Integrity Section in the last 18 months.

OIG semiannual reports summarize activities without naming individuals or cases. The OIG's Semiannual Reports to Congress provide overviews of investigative activities and statistical data for specific periods, such as April 1, 2025 – September 30, 2025 [[^]](https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig-releases-semiannual-report-congress-period-april-1-2025-september-30-2025) and October 1, 2024 – March 31, 2025 [[^]](https://oig.justice.gov/news/doj-oig-releases-semiannual-report-congress-period-october-1-2024-march-31-2025). However, these reports are designed to summarize overall activities and trends, not to identify individuals involved in ongoing cases or to detail specific criminal referrals [[^]](https://oig.justice.gov/ongoing-work).

OPR investigative summaries anonymize or generalize misconduct and disciplinary actions. Similarly, OPR publishes Investigative Summaries for various years, including 2025 and 2026 [[^]](https://www.justice.gov/opr/2026-investigative-summary-2). While these summaries describe instances of misconduct and outline disciplinary actions taken, they are typically anonymized or generalized. They do not usually name the individuals involved or specify criminal referrals to particular sections like the Public Integrity Section [[^]](https://www.justice.gov/criminal/criminal-pin).

## Are Aides of Market List Individuals Retaining Criminal Defense Counsel?

Associates' Legal Counsel | No reported retention of high-profile criminal defense counsel (Research findings) [[^]](https://kalshi.com/markets/kxfederalcharge/who-will-be-charged-with-a-federal-crime/KXFEDERALCHARGE-27JAN01) |
Proffer Sessions Status | No reported entry into proffer sessions with federal prosecutors (Research findings) [[^]](https://kalshi.com/markets/kxfederalcharge/who-will-be-charged-with-a-federal-crime/KXFEDERALCHARGE-27JAN01) |
Cooperation Deals Indication | No indications of potential cooperation deals from associates (Research findings) [[^]](https://kalshi.com/markets/kxfederalcharge/who-will-be-charged-with-a-federal-crime/KXFEDERALCHARGE-27JAN01) |

**No public reports indicate cooperation deals by key subordinates**

No public reports indicate cooperation deals by key subordinates. Available web research does not contain information suggesting that key junior associates, financial officers, or senior aides of individuals on the **market** list have recently retained high-profile criminal defense counsel or engaged in proffer sessions with federal prosecutors. This absence implies a lack of public indicators for potential cooperation deals involving these subordinates.

Prediction markets and insider trading cases lack subordinate legal details. While several sources discuss prediction markets naming individuals such as Mark Kelly, James Comey, Jerome Powell, and Tucker Carlson concerning federal crimes [[^]](https://www.sportsbettingdime.com/news/politics/will-mark-kelly-james-comey-be-charged-with-federal-crimessee-the-latest-prediction-markets-and-odds/), these reports do not detail the legal activities of their respective junior associates, financial officers, or senior aides. Similarly, the multi-national insider trading case, 'United States v. Khouadja et al.', is extensively detailed [[^]](http://mintzlevin.prod.acquia-sites.com/insights-center/viewpoints/2446/2026-03-02-anatomy-multi-national-insider-trading-case-united) but does not report on the legal representation or proffer sessions of associates or aides of any individuals potentially linked to the prediction **market** lists.

Lobbyist Joshua Nass's case does not detail associate actions. One federal investigation report mentions lobbyist Joshua Nass, who was charged with attempted extortion and is engaged in plea talks [[^]](https://us.cnn.com/2026/03/14/politics/joshua-nass-lobbyist-charged). However, the information on Nass focuses exclusively on his personal legal situation, including his plea discussions [[^]](http://in.mobile.reuters.com/legal/government/lobbyist-man-pardoned-by-trump-plea-talks-extortion-charges-2026-04-07/), and does not provide details on any actions taken by his junior associates, financial officers, or senior aides regarding legal counsel or proffer sessions that would indicate cooperation deals related to individuals on the **market** list.

## What Could Change the Odds

**Key takeaway.** Catalyst analysis unavailable.

## Key Dates & Catalysts

- **Expiration:** January 08, 2027
- **Closes:** January 01, 2027

## Decision-Flipping Events

- Catalyst analysis unavailable.

## Related Research Reports

- [EU has a new member before 2030?](/markets/politics/international/eu-has-a-new-member-before-2030/)
- [Which of these African leaders will leave office next?](/markets/politics/international/which-of-these-african-leaders-will-leave-office-next/)
- [Trump's approval rating on May 1, 2026?](/markets/politics/recurring/trump-s-approval-rating-on-may-1-2026/)
- [Will Trump balance the budget?](/markets/politics/trump/will-trump-balance-the-budget/)

## Historical Resolutions

No historical resolution data available for this series.

## Disclaimer

This content is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, legal, or trading advice.
Prediction markets involve risk of loss. Past performance does not guarantee future results.
We are not affiliated with Kalshi or any prediction market platform. Market data may be delayed or incomplete.

### Data Sources & Model Transparency

**Data Sources:** Octagon Deep Research aggregates information from multiple sources including news, filings, and market data.

**Freshness:** Analysis is generated periodically and may not reflect the latest developments. Verify critical information from primary sources.