FBI Finds 1.9M Records in “Hidden Room”
FBI Finds 1.9M Jack Smith–Linked Records in Hidden Room
Supreme Court Argument on Single Election Day Set for March 23
Federal Hearing in Lawsuit on FBI Targeting of Traditionalist Catholics
Judicial Watch Sues Justice for Records Linking Norm Eisen to ‘Arctic Frost’
Judicial Watch Asks Court for Fani Willis Communications with Washington
FBI Finds 1.9M Jack Smith–Linked Records in Hidden Room
Here’s a discovery that will break the news cycle in the coming weeks.
The U.S. Department of Justice Department has reported that the FBI found about 1.9 million pages of records in response to our Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. These documents were reportedly stored in a “hidden room” at FBI headquarters and were first revealed by former Deputy Director Dan Bongino (Judicial Watch v U.S. Department of Justice (No.1:25-cv-04047)).
According to the FBI’s filing, the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) contains several safes holding between approximately 950,000 and 1,900,000 pages of records. The FBI estimates that processing these materials could take up to a year:
The Complaint (ECF No. 1) in this action asks for three items of records.
For item 1, Plaintiff seeks “[a]ll documents referenced by Deputy Director Dan Bongino” (emphasis added) concerning a room located in FBI Headquarters. The room referenced is a Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility (SCIF) that houses records related to both closed and open investigations. The FBI continues to assess the contents of the room and the total volume of records in the room. The FBI continues to determine what records, if any, are responsive to the request.
Until all documents have been digitized and reviewed, the Defendant cannot identify the anticipated number of documents responsive to the request or the anticipated date(s) for release of the requested documents. The FBI can provide the following update about the status of this process. Specifically, the FBI has assessed that the room presently contains the following records that require digitization before they can be scoped for responsiveness and processed for production: several five-drawer filing cabinets (safes) that the FBI estimates to include approximately, between 950,000 and 1,900,000 pages (which may fluctuate depending on whether there is material on both the front and back of the pages). The FBI estimates that volume of records will take between 10 to 12 months to process.
The records appear to include the following:
Legacy Files: These records consist of older legacy records, the majority of which relate to two closed, historical investigations. These records belong to the DOJ Office of Inspector General (OIG), and prior to release, must be sent to the DOJ OIG for consultation on its equities in the records.
Other files: These records consist of more recent records related to various investigations, including, for example, active investigations and prior Special Counsel investigative records, many of which are likely to require consultation with other government agencies prior to release.
Following the digitization of the records described above, the FBI must scope the records for responsiveness and then process the records and complete consultations with other government agencies. Given the records’ subject matters and storage in a SCIF, it is also likely the records will need to be reviewed for classification issues.
To reduce the workload associated with this process, the parties will confer to determine whether it’s possible to reduce the scope of the records at issue for item 1. The parties will report on the result of those discussions in the next joint status report.
Items 2 and 3 seek the following records:
“All internal FBI communications among officials in the offices of FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino related to the discovery of these documents.”
“All directives sent to officials from the offices of the Director and/or Deputy Director regarding the handling and disposition of the documents referenced in Bullet 1.”
For items 2 and 3, the FBI continues its search for responsive records located in any database systems, SharePoint sites, as well as paper or manual files. The parties will provide an update on the status of the search for records potentially responsive to Items 2 and 3 in the next joint status report.
The court filing comes in the Judicial Watch lawsuit filed last year, after the FBI, a component of the Justice Department, failed to respond to a June 2025 FOIA request for:
1. All documents referenced by Deputy Director Dan Bongino as having been discovered in a room “hidden from us and not mentioned to us,” discussed in a Fox News interview at https://x.com/libsoftiktok/status/1928099455095427383;
2. All internal FBI communications among officials in the offices of FBI Director Kash Patel and FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino related to the discovery of these documents; and
3. All directives sent to officials from the offices of the Director and/or Deputy Director regarding the handling and disposition of the documents.
In a Fox News interview on May 29, 2025, then-FBI Deputy Director Bongino stated:
There was a room [in FBI Headquarters], and we found stuff. A lot of stuff … hidden from us at least and not mentioned to us. And then found stuff in there. A lot is from the Comey era. We are working … right now to declassify. And just so you know, because I get the public—I totally understand people saying “well do it now.” The process is: not all of the information is ours to declassify. Some is other intelligence agencies’…. We literally can’t do it. Once that gets done … and you read some of the stuff we found—that, by the way, was not processed through the normal procedure, digitizing and putting in FBI records. We found it in bags, hiding under Jim Comey’s FBI. You’re going to be stunned.
In July 2025, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley issued a press release titled “Clinton Campaign Plan to Falsely Tie Trump to Russia and FBI’s Failure to Investigate” concerning additional Comey-era events. Grassley made public the formerly Classified Appendix (“Durham annex”) to John Durham’s 2023 Special Counsel report. Grassley’s office stated:
The Durham annex contains previously classified information exposing a reported Clinton campaign plan to falsely tie President Donald Trump to Russia.
The annex also goes into further detail on matters discussed in the Unclassified Report, specifically:
- Potential election influence by a foreign government regarding Hillary Clinton;
- False statements to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISA court) regarding FISA renewal applications for Carter Page;
- The FBI’s failure – under the leadership of then-Director James Comey – to investigate intelligence that the Clinton campaign may have created the Russia collusion hoax. Meanwhile the Comey-led FBI used the Steele Dossier – a Clinton campaign creation – to obtain FISA warrants on Carter Page.
Despite the passage of nine months since the “hidden room” records request and four months since the lawsuit was filed, the Bureau has yet to provide an estimated completion date for its search, the number of responsive records for key categories, or a timeline for production of documents.
In the March 12 filing, we urged the court to compel the FBI to complete its search for key records within 60 days and to establish a firm production schedule.
The court responded quickly, ordering the FBI to disclose how many high-level, internal FBI communications and directives exist about handling these secret documents by the next filing on May 11, 2026.
This is an astonishing and troubling revelation. The FBI and Justice Department must go all out to release the nearly 2 million secret FBI and DOJ files on the lawfare against Trump and whatever else the Obama and Biden gangs don’t want Americans to know about. I have no doubt these records are far more important than the Epstein files.
This is the latest in a series of Judicial Watch investigations targeting shady FBI weaponization and abuse of power.
In August 2025, we sued the Justice Department for all records regarding the FBI, under then-Director James Comey, initiating an investigation of then-2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump.
In May 2020, we uncovered the FBI “EC”—the electronic communication that officially launched the counterintelligence investigation, termed “Crossfire Hurricane,” of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign. The document was written by former FBI official Peter Strzok and was obtained as the result of a Judicial Watch FOIA lawsuit for: “The Electronic Communication that initiated the counterintelligence investigation of Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.”
In August 2019, we uncovered “302” report material from FBI interviews with Bruce Ohr, who was removed from his position as U.S. Associate Deputy Attorney General in December 2017.
In March 2019, we received heavily redacted records from the Justice Department that reveal that Ohr remained in regular contact with former British spy and Fusion GPS contractor Christopher Steele after Steele was terminated by the FBI in November 2016 for revealing to the media his position as an FBI confidential informant.
In December 2018, we uncovered U.S. State Department documents showing classified information was researched and disseminated to multiple U.S. Senators by the Obama administration immediately prior to Trump’s inauguration. The documents reveal that among those receiving the classified documents were Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA), Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), and Sen. Robert Corker (R-TN). Judicial Watch obtained the documents through a FOIA lawsuit for records of the Obama State Department’s last-minute efforts to share classified information about Russia election interference issues with Cardin.
In August 2018, we announced that in response to a its FOIA lawsuit, the Justice Department admitted in a court filingthat the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held no hearings on the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a former Trump campaign part-time advisor who was the subject of four controversial FISA warrants.
Also in August, we forced the release of heavily redacted records about Christopher Steele, the former British spy, hired with Clinton campaign and Democratic National Committee funds, who authored the infamous dossier targeting Trump during last year’s presidential campaign. The documents show that Steele was cut off as a “Confidential Human Source” (CHS) after he disclosed his relationship with the FBI to a third party. The documents also show at least 11 FBI payments to Steele in 2016 and document that he was admonished for unknown reasons in February 2016.
In July 2018, we released documents about FISA warrants targeting Carter Page, who had been a Trump campaign adviser.
Supreme Court Argument on Single Election Day Set for March 23
The Supreme Court will hold an oral argument on March 23 in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. The public can listen to the oral arguments here.
We brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi. We have partnered with former Solicitor General Paul Clement, who will present our argument to the High Court next week.
Our legal team seeks to uphold a historic ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, which found that Mississippi’s counting of ballots received up to five days after Election Day to be unlawful. The suit has been consolidated with a similar challenge brought by the Republican National Committee (RNC), the Mississippi Republican Party, and others against Mississippi Secretary of State Michael Watson and local election officials (Watson v. Republican National Committee et al. (No. 24-1260)) (Libertarian Party of Mississippi v. Wetzel et al. (No. 1:24-cv-00037)).
We argue that the ordinary meaning of “election” at the time Congress enacted the statutes includes the full process of voting and the receipt of ballots by officials. Counting post-Election Day ballots is a relatively recent practice without any historic foundation. Allowing ballots to “trickle in” after Election Day creates opportunities for fraud and erodes public confidence.
Our brief points out:
The whole point of the federal Election-Day statutes is to set a single uniform day for the election. Allowing ballots to trickle in days or weeks after Election Day is antithetical to that basic goal. Indeed, a patchwork of state ballot-receipt deadlines replicates the problems Congress was trying to remedy with a single national Election Day. It is entirely implausible to conclude that Congress—when thrice exercising its preemptive power under the Elections and Electors Clauses—left the door open for states to vitiate those statutes by postponing electoral outcomes with post-election ballot-receipt deadlines. Congress certainly did not leave states the power to undo this important federal time regulation by simply declaring all mailboxes to be ballot boxes.
***
Through the federal Election-Day statutes, Congress exercised its constitutional authority to set a uniform time for federal elections to occur. Text, historical practice, precedent, and common sense all demonstrate that those statutes set the deadline by which ballots must be submitted and received. Simply put, the ballot box closes on Election Day, and ballots that are not received until days or weeks after the date specified by Congress arrive after Election Day and should not be counted.
Congress set a uniform national Election Day, meaning the “ballot box closes” on that day.
Federal law sets one Election Day. That deadline should be enforced. This case goes to whether federal election law will be applied as written. Congress established a single, uniform Election Day, and states cannot override that mandate with extended ballot-receipt deadlines. Allowing ballots to arrive after Election Day creates uncertainty, invites fraud, and erodes public confidence. The Supreme Court now has a critical opportunity to restore a clear national standard.
We are a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.
We took the lead in moving to enforce the Election Day federal deadlines, with lawsuits in Illinois, California, and Mississippi. In January, the Supreme Court ruled 7–2 in favor of affirming candidate standing in the Election Day challenge we filed on behalf of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors
Our election law efforts are led by Senior Attorney Robert Popper, who previously served in the Voting Section of the Justice Department’s Civil Rights Division, where he managed voting rights investigations and litigation across dozens of states.
- Russell Nobile, a senior Judicial Watch attorney and election law expert, in February 2026 provided testimony to the House Committee on House Administration at a hearing titled: “Make Elections Great Again: How to Restore Trust and Integrity in Federal Elections.”
Eric Lee is an attorney at Judicial Watch, where he focuses on enforcing federal and state laws that promote transparency and integrity in the electoral process. Eric graduated with his B.A. from St. Mary’s College of Maryland and received his J.D. from the University of Maryland School of Law. He is licensed to practice in California, Maryland, the District of Columbia, and in federal courts in Illinois and Colorado.
Paul D. Clement, James Y. Xi, and Philip Hammersley of Clement and Murphy PLLC are assisting us in this case. Clement, who has argued more than 100 cases before the Supreme Court, is former solicitor general under President George W. Bush from 2005-2008 and is widely regarded as among the top Supreme Court litigators in the country.
Federal courts in Oregon, California and Illinois have ruled that our lawsuits against those states to force them to clean their voter rolls may proceed.
We announced in May 2025 that our work led to the removal of more than five million ineligible names from voter rolls nationwide.
Federal Hearing in Lawsuit on FBI Targeting of Traditionalist Catholics
A federal court hearing will be held in Washington, DC, on Thursday, March 19, 2026, at 3:30 p.m. ET in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) for records about the Biden FBI’s targeting of “radical traditionalist” Catholics.
Judicial Watch, along with CatholicVote Civic Action, sued the FBI and the Justice Department in April 2023 for records containing key words and records about a FBI memo targeting Catholics (CatholicVote Civic Action and Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigations and Department of Justice (No. 1:23-cv-01166)).
In November 2023, we received 131 heavily redacted pages of records from the FBI showing top officials rushing to craft a public response to the leaked FBI intelligence memo that revealed its targeting of Catholics who adhere to traditional beliefs on church issues.
In December 2023, we received 98 pages of heavily redacted records from the FBI showing that the agency’s Office of General Counsel (its top legal team at headquarters) reviewed and was involved in handling the controversial internal memo from the FBI’s Richmond, VA, field office that targeted traditional Catholics.
In September 2025, the court ordered the production of a Vaughn index, which is a log describing responsive records withheld by the government and the legal reasons for the withholdings. Both agencies provided indexes, but the index provided by the FBI was partially illegible and lacked detailed explanations. The FBI has declined to revise the index or provide a clearer version.
Why won’t this DOJ and FBI reveal the full record on one of the most notorious abuses of power under Biden—the FBI’s targeting of Catholics for their Christian religious beliefs? This concerns the First Amendment, and the Biden Justice Department’s flagrant abuse may be criminal.
Judicial Watch Sues Justice for Records Linking Norm Eisen to ‘Arctic Frost’
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for all records linking Norm Eisen to the FBI’s Biden-era “Arctic Frost” probe, specifically involving the Criminal Division, the Office of Information Policy, Attorney General Merrick Garland, Deputy Attorney General Lisa Monaco and Special Counsel Jack Smith’s team (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:26-cv-00746)).
The “Arctic Frost” investigation was an FBI probe opened in April 2022 that targeted over 430 Republicans, including President Donald Trump’s campaign committees, and the Republican National Committee. It secretly subpoenaed phone records and metadata from Trump and at least 10 Republican senators. The investigation was transferred to Special Counsel Jack Smith.
Progressive, activist attorney Norm Eisen’s States United Democracy Center (formerly the Voter Protection Program) was accused of helping to develop legal theories and materials related to the prosecution of alternate slates of Republican electors in the 2020 election.
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Justice Department failed to respond to two November 10, 2025, FOIA requests, one to the Criminal Division and the other to the Office of Information Policy (“OIP”). Both requests specified:
These records must reference both (1) the “Arctic Frost” investigation (the FBI’s codenamed investigation opened in April 2022 into alleged efforts to overturn the 2020 presidential election results, including fake electors schemes and related election interference activities); and (2) Norm Eisen (full name: Norman L. Eisen).
The Criminal Division FOIA request also asked for:
Records and communications between or among Criminal Division, DOJ, and Norm Eisen (full name: Norman L. Eisen).
The Office of Information Policy FOIA request included:
Records and communications between or among the following individuals or their staff/designees and Norm Eisen (full name: Norman L. Eisen).
- Office of Merrick Garland, Attorney General of the United States;
- Office of Lisa Monaco, Deputy Attorney General of the United States; and
- The Office of Special Counsel (OSC), including former Special Counsel Jack Smith and his staff.
The Criminal Division has refused to confirm or deny the existence of records, citing FOIA exemptions, while the Office of Information Policy has failed to provide any substantive response beyond invoking FOIA’s extension provisions.
Americans have a right to know whether Justice Department officials and outside lawyers like Norm Eisen were involved in efforts to investigate or influence political activity related to the 2020 election. We will continue to use the courts to ensure the public has access to records showing how federal agencies investigated political activity.
We are a national leader in exposing the lawfare of “Arctic Frost.” This is part of a comprehensive, ongoing investigation into the conspiracy to take down Donald Trump.
In February 2026, we secured the release of rosters identifying the names of top deputies who worked for former Special Counsel Jack Smith. The names were released after we filed a May 2023 FOIA lawsuit challenging the Biden Justice Department’s rejection of our request for “staff rosters, phone lists, or similar records depicting all employees hired by or detailed to the Office of Special Counsel Jack Smith” (Judicial Watch Inc. v U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:23-cv-01485)).
In January 2026, we sued the Justice Department for records regarding the FBI Public Corruption Unit’s investigation of Trump codenamed “Arctic Frost” (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:26-cv-00163)).
In November 2025, we sued the Justice Department for the emails of former Special Counsel Jack Smith with officials in Georgia and New York and with the White House, congressional and law enforcement offices regarding his investigation into Trump (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-03849)).
In August 2025, we sued the U.S. Department of Justice for communications between former Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault and the anti-Trump organization American Oversight (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv–02556)).
In June 2025, we sued the Justice Department for records about the FBI’s investigation of Trump codenamed “Arctic Frost” (Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-02011)).
Also in June 2025, we sued Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes for her communications with Smith (Judicial Watch v. Kristin Mayes and Arizona Department of Law (CV 2025-020674)).
In March 2025, we sued the Justice Department for details of any investigations, inquiries, or referrals concerning potential misconduct of any person working for Smith (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:25-cv-00801)).
In January 2025, a federal court ordered the Justice Department to provide us information on communications between Special Counsel Jack Smith and District Attorney Fani Willis regarding the prosecution of Trump. The Justice Department had continued to object to providing any information even after its prosecutions against Trump were shut down (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 23-cv-03110)).
Judicial Watch Asks Court for Fani Willis Communications with Washington
We have asked a Georgia state court to reject Fulton County District Attorney Fani Willis’ efforts to continue hiding records about her office’s communications with Jack Smith’s office and the January 6 Committee.
We filed a March 2024 open records lawsuit after Willis falsely denied having any responsive records (Judicial Watch Inc. v. Fani Willis et al. (No. 24-CV-002805)).
We argue that 212 pages of still-secret records must now be released, as the controversial criminal case against President Donald Trump and others has been dismissed and Willis’ claims of privilege are without merit. The Fulton County court ordered Willis to explain why the documents should not be released following the dismissal of her indictments.
Fani Willis lied to the courts and the people about her ‘get-Trump’ conspiracy with the Biden and Pelosi operations. These documents can’t be released soon enough.
In December 2024, the court granted our motion for default judgment against Willis for failing to properly respond to the lawsuit. The judge ordered her to conduct a diligent search and produce any releasable records within five business days, while also awarding us attorneys’ fees.
Willis refused to release non-public documents. Her office continued to claim that no records existed about Jack Smith, cited various legal exemptions (especially for January 6 Committee communications), and released only one already-public letter to Committee Chairman Bennie Thompson.
In January 2025, the court awarded us $21,578 in attorneys’ fees and costs.
A hearing was held before Judge Robert C.I. McBurney in February 2025 on our motion for in camera (private) inspection of records and appointment of a special master to oversee Willis’ search.
In March 2025, Willis was ordered to turn over 212 pages of records to the judge for review. She was also required to explain how the records were located and why any were being withheld. These records were only found only after multiple searches, despite earlier blanket denials.
In August 2025, the court ordered Willis to provide new information and potentially conduct a further search for Trump-related records. Her affidavit failed to address whether devices belonging to former Special Prosecutor Nathan Wade or Chief Investigator Michael L. Hill (both involved in the Trump election case and likely to have been in contact with the January 6 Committee) had been searched.
We are assisted in the case by John Monroe of John Monroe Law in Georgia.
We are a national leader in exposing the lawfare and abuse targeting Trump and other innocent Americans.
In January 2026, Judicial Watch sued the Justice Department for communications of FBI agents regarding the prosecution of former Trump trade advisor Peter Navarro.
In August 2025, Judicial Watch sued the Justice Department for communications between former Assistant Special Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault and the anti-Trump organization American Oversight.
In March 2025, Judicial Watch sued the Justice Department for details of any investigations, inquiries, or referrals concerning potential misconduct of any person working for Smith.
(Before his appointment to investigate and prosecute Trump, Smith previously was at the center of several controversial issues, the IRS scandal among them. In 2014, a Judicial Watch investigation revealed that top IRS officials had been in communication with Smith’s then-Public Integrity Section about a plan to launch criminal investigations into conservative tax-exempt groups. Read more here.)
Until next week,
Top News
