The FBI has raided the home of John Bolton, the former national security adviser to Donald Trump who has since become a staunch critic of the US president.

The search of Mr Bolton’s house in Bethesda, Maryland on Friday was part of a “national security investigation in search of classified records”, reported NBC News, Sky’s US partner network, citing a source.

Mr Bolton has not been detained or apprehended. He served as President Trump’s top security adviser for 17 months during his first term in office, but was forced out of the role in 2019.

President Trump on Friday told reporters in Washington that he’d had no advance knowledge of the raid, adding: “I’m not a fan of John Bolton.”

The US Justice Department is yet to comment but FBI director Kash Patel posted on X on Friday morning, writing: “NO ONE is above the law… @FBI agents on mission.”

An FBI official said in a statement the agency was “conducting court authorized activity in the area”, indicating grounds had been approved for a search warrant.

Mr Trump’s former adviser is yet to respond to enquires for comment. He was not at his home during the early morning raid, CNN reported. He was seen in his Washington DC office on Friday in talks with FBI officials, according to the Associated Press.

US federal authorities are yet to release any detail as to why the search has been conducted and what allegations may be levelled against Mr Bolton.

Unnamed sources told the New York Times that an investigation has been launched into whether Mr Bolton illegally shared or possessed classified information. NBC reported a source saying the probe was looking into potential instances of the documents being leaked to journalists.

During his time as adviser, Mr Bolton had clashed regularly with the president on policy direction over Iran and North Korea. He was viewed as hawkish adviser, and President Trump has previously criticised him as “warmongering”, saying he pushed him to take military action on Iran.

Since leaving the post, Mr Bolton has called the Republican president unfit to serve, and most recently criticised Trump’s actions in Ukraine and negotiations with Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In 2020, Mr Bolton also published a memoir of his time in the White House, in which he described multiple instances of what he described as Mr Trump’s misconduct and incompetence in handling foreign policy.

He also alleged that the president often prioritised his own personal interests over national security. Prior to publication, Trump’s government had tried to block the release but failed in its legal bid.

Since his return to office, Trump has on multiple occasions sought to use his presidential powers against perceived political enemies. On his first day back in the White House, Trump revoked the security clearances of more than four dozen intelligence officials, including Mr Bolton.

He also cancelled security detail for Mr Bolton and two other former Trump officials earlier this year. The officials had been receiving the federal protection because of threats to their safety from Iran.

Prior to working in Trump’s first-term team, Bolton had previously served in George W. Bush’s administration as the US ambassador to the United Nations.

It’s been a confusing week.

The Monday gathering of European leaders and Ukraine’s president with Donald Trump at the White House was highly significant.

Ukraine latest: Trump changes tack

The leaders went home buoyed in the knowledge that they’d finally convinced the American president not to abandon Europe, and he had committed to provide American “security guarantees” to Ukraine.

The details were sketchy, and sketched out only a little more through the week – we got some noise about American air cover – but regardless, the presidential commitment represented a clear shift from months of isolationist rhetoric on Ukraine – “it’s Europe’s problem” and all the rest of it.

Yet it was always the case that, beyond that clear achievement for the Europeans, Russia would have a problem with it.

Trump’s envoy’s language last weekend – claiming that Putin had agreed to Europe providing “Article 5-like” guarantees for Ukraine, essentially providing it with a NATO-like collective security blanket – was baffling.

Russia gives two fingers to the president

And throughout this week, Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov has repeatedly and predictably undermined the whole thing, pointing out that Russia would never accept any peace plan that involved any European or NATO troops in Ukraine.

“The presence of foreign troops in Ukraine is completely unacceptable for Russia,” he said yesterday, echoing similar statements stretching back years.

Remember that NATO’s “eastern encroachment” was the justification for Russia’s “special military operation” – the invasion of Ukraine – in the first place. All this makes Trump look rather weak.

It’s two fingers to the president, though interestingly, the Russian language has been carefully calibrated not to poke Trump but to mock European leaders instead. That’s telling.

Read more on Ukraine:
Trump risks ‘very big mistake’
NATO-like promise for Ukraine may be too good to be true
Europe tried to starve Putin’s war machine – it didn’t go as planned

The bilateral meeting hailed by Trump on Monday as agreed and close – “within two weeks” – looks decidedly doubtful.

Maybe that’s why he went along with Putin’s suggestion that there be a bilateral, not including Trump, first.

It’s easier for the American president to blame someone else if it’s not his meeting, and it doesn’t happen.

NATO defence chiefs met on Wednesday to discuss the details of how the security guarantees – the ones Russia won’t accept – will work.

European sources at the meeting have told me it was all a great success. And to the comments by Lavrov, a source said: “It’s not up to Lavrov to decide on security guarantees. Not up to the one doing the threatening to decide how to deter that threat!”

The argument goes that it’s not realistic for Russia to say from which countries Ukraine can and cannot host troops.

Would Trump threaten force?

The problem is that if Europe and the White House want Russia to sign up to some sort of peace deal, then it would require agreement from all sides on the security arrangements.

The other way to get Russia to heel would be with an overwhelming threat of force. Something from Trump, like: “Vladimir – look what I did to Iran…”. But, of course, Iran isn’t a nuclear power.

Something else bothers me about all this. The core concept of a “security guarantee” is an ironclad obligation to defend Ukraine into the future.

Future guarantees would require treaties, not just a loose promise. I don’t see Trump’s America truly signing up to anything that obliges them to do anything.

A layered security guarantee which builds over time is an option, but from a Kremlin perspective, would probably only end up being a repeat of history and allow them another “justification” to push back.

Read more from Sky News:
Inside the ISIS resurgence
10 years since one of UK’s worst air disasters
How Republicans are redrawing maps to stay in power

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

Image and reality don’t seem to match

Among Trump’s stream of social media posts this week was an image of him waving his finger at Putin in Alaska. It was one of the few non-effusive images from the summit.

He posted it next to an image of former president Richard Nixon confronting Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev – an image that came to reflect American dominance over the Soviet Union.

That may be the image Trump wants to portray. But the events of the past week suggest image and reality just don’t match.

The past 24 hours in Ukraine have been among the most violent to date.

Legislators in Texas have approved new congressional maps designed to boost Donald Trump’s Republicans at next year’s midterm elections.

Known as redistricting, the state’s re-drawn map would shift conservative voters into districts currently held by Democrats, and combine other districts with a Democratic majority into one.

The process is not new, and is completely legal – unless it is ruled to be racially motivated – but typically occurs every 10 years after the US Census to account for population changes.

The push to redistrict early came from Mr Trump himself, who wants to bolster his chances of preserving the slim Republican majority in the House of Representatives at next year’s crucial midterms.

But by trying to re-draw the maps in the red state of Texas, Democrats have lined up their own counter redistricting effort in the blue state of California.

If more states decide to re-consider their maps, it has the potential to largely determine the outcome of the 2026 midterms, before a single vote is cast.

What’s happening in Texas?

Mr Trump first said he wanted politicians in Texas to redraw the state’s congressional district in July. The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, followed up on the president’s demands, calling for a special session to vote on new maps.

“Please pass this map ASAP,” Mr Trump urged on his Truth Social platform on Monday. “Thank you, Texas!”

In an effort to try to make passing the vote as difficult as possible, Democrats fled the state for two weeks. Per parliamentary rules, if enough Democrats refuse to take part in the special session, the Texas House can’t meet.

On their return, each Democratic politician was assigned a police escort to ensure they attended the session.

Nicole Collier, who refused the police escort, stayed in the House for two nights, and was pictured with an eye mask and blanket trying to sleep at her desk.

Once the debate started, the doors to the chamber were locked and all members wanting to leave had to get a permission slip to do so.

After nearly eight hours, the legislation to formally change the map was passed 88-52 on Wednesday.

It now needs to be approved by the Texas Senate, where Republicans hold a majority, and then signed off by Mr Abbott, who has already committed to doing just that.

Why re-draw maps?

Republicans in Texas have openly said the rally to re-draw congressional maps is in the party’s interest.

Todd Hunter, the Republican who wrote the legislation formally creating the new map, told the House: “The underlying goal of this plan is straight forward: improve Republican political performance.”

He said the dispute is nothing more than a partisan fight, and made reference to the US Supreme Court having previously allowed politicians to redraw districts for partisan purposes.

Read more from Sky News:
Trump sets red line on Ukraine
Trump risks ‘very big mistake’ with Putin

Democrats hit back, arguing the disagreement was about more than partisanship.

“In a democracy, people choose their representatives,” representative Chris Turner said. “This bill flips that on its head and lets politicians in Washington, DC, choose their voters.”

Another Democrat, John H Bucy, blamed the president, saying: “This is Donald Trump’s map.

“It clearly and deliberately manufactures five more Republican seats in Congress because Trump himself knows that the voters are rejecting his agenda.”

How have Democrats responded?

The move by Republicans has triggered a tit-for-tat move by the Democrats, who are due to meet in California on Thursday to revise the state’s maps in order to gain five more seats.

To enact the same powers in California will prove harder, as state laws require an independent commission to take responsibility for redistricting – meaning it would need to be approved by voters in a special election.

In other blue states, rules are even tighter. For example, in New York, they cannot draw new maps until 2028, and even then, only with voter approval.

Despite the obstacles, California governor Gavin Newsom confirmed a redistricting election will take place in the state on 4 November, in order to “fight fire with fire”.

His plan has gained support from former president Barack Obama, who said it was necessary to “stave off” the Republicans’ move in Texas.

Could this affect the midterms?

The midterms in November next year will likely be on a knife edge.

Whatever the outcome, it could shape the remainder of Mr Trump’s second term in office. A Democrat majority would make it tougher for him to pass laws.

Currently, Republicans control the House of Representatives in Washington, 219-212 (excluding four open vacancies). A party needs 218 seats for a majority.

In the Senate, the Republicans hold a similarly slim majority of 53 to 45.

However, the incumbent president’s party typically loses seats in the midterms.

In the 2018 midterms, during Mr Trump’s first tenure as president, the Democrats took control of the House. Likewise, in 2022, when Joe Biden was president, the House swung back to the Republicans.

It’s important to note that 27 House seats will remain in states that are unlikely to redraw their maps, according to The New York Times.

Follow The World

Listen to The World with Richard Engel and Yalda Hakim every Wednesday

Tap to follow

In a bid to avoid a repeat of history, Mr Trump is pushing for redistricting in states beyond Texas. Top Republicans in states like Indiana, Missouri, and Florida continue to talk about tweaking their maps to create more Republican-controlled congressional seats.

While Ohio has to legally redraw, the timing of which could benefit the Republicans, and, by extension, Mr Trump.