Judicial Watch Sues Fed for Subpoenas about $2.5 Billion Renovation

[INSIDE JW]

RECORDS SHOW FBI OBJECTING TO MAR-A-LAGO RAID

[[link removed]]

We obtained 207 pages
[[link removed]]
of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) records that reveal the
FBI’s concerns about the legal basis for the raid of then-former
President Donald J. Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home.

The records expose deep concerns within the FBI itself, including
explicit objections from field agents who warned the U.S. Department
of Justice that the unprecedented August 8, 2022, raid on Trump’s
home lacked probable cause.

We uncovered the documents in response to a March 11, 2026, Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) request regarding the counterintelligence
investigation codenamed Plasmic Echo
[[link removed]
“sensitive investigative matter
[[link removed] launched
following a referral from the National Archives and Records
Administration.

The records include a July 13, 2022, email
[[link removed]]
between FBI field agents explicitly stating they did not believe
probable cause existed to search Mar-a-Lago and urging the Justice
Department to cooperate with Trump’s attorney instead of insisting
on a raid:

> WFO [Washington Field Office] has made numerous suggestions to DOJ
> [Justice Department] over the course of this investigation that the
> most expedient way to ensure recovery of all classified documents
> would be to go through Mr. Corcoran [then-Trump’s attorney Evan
> Corcoran]. DOJ has persistently disagreed.
>
> * New NARA Referral for all PRA vs. classified. If NARA pursued
> “presidential records” which are likely to still be located at
> Mar a Lago, they could recover any additional records which may,
> upon review, identify additional classified material. WFO has been
> rebuffed in this request by DOJ.
>
> WFO does not believe (and has articulated to DOJ CES
> [Counterintelligence and Export Control Section]), that we have
> established probable cause for the search warrant at Mar a Lago. DOJ
> has opined that they do, requesting a wide scope including
> residence, office, storage space.

Finally, if the goal is to identify and recover classified records
quickly, so as to protect the information, the 5 weeks spent fixated
on probable cause for a search warrant have been counterproductive.

A separate internal communication
[[link removed]]
reinforces that agents rejected the legal basis and scope:

> DOJ has inquired as to an Ops [operations] Plan for a SW of MAL. WFO
> relayed that we are not in agreement for PC [probable cause] on the
> SW [search warrant]. WFO has an Ops Plan in place that will/can be
> quickly updated between FBI/MM [Miami] and FBI/WF, however,
> [Redacted] does not believe we have PC for the 45 [Trump] Office or
> the bedroom due to recency and issues of boxes versus classified
> information. Therefore, as we are in disagreement on the SW and its
> scope, we are not yet finalizing a SW as we are missing relevant
> logistics and details.

A May 10, 2022, FBI email
[[link removed]]
shows direct coordination with the Biden White House Counsel’s
Office and identifies a Trump aide as a target: “Coordination with
DOJ and WH Counsel are in work to start the process to confirm and
interview current administration employee Walt Nauta (former WH
Valet).”

An August 4, 2022, FBI email
[[link removed]]
documents Justice Department officials dismissing optics:

> Because the search warrant operational plan has contact with
> FPOTUS’s [Trump’s] attorney as the first step, I’d
> respectfully request that the contact be handled by FBI, not by DOJ.
> As the ASAC [assistant special agent in charge] who will be
> responsible for the execution of the warrant, this first contact
> will set the tone for the day. The FBI intends for the execution of
> the warrant to be handled in a professional, low key manner, and to
> be mindful of the optics of the search. Safety of the search team is
> always of a concern during any such operation. Since we heard Mr.
> Toscas say yesterday in the call that “he frankly doesn't give a
> damn about the optics” and Mr. Bratt already has built an
> antagonistic relationship with FPOTUS’s attorney [redacted] I
> think it is fair to say that the DOJ contact with Mr. Corcoran just
> prior to the execution of the warrant will not go well.

A May 24, 2022, FBI email
[[link removed]]
indicates that the press had advance knowledge of the
investigation’s actions: “an inquiry from the Washington Post
seeking confirmation on two items from the FBI WFO Public Affairs
team.”

A February 24, 2022, FBI report
[[link removed]]
shows the left-wing advocacy group Citizens for Responsibility and
Ethics in Washington (CREW) helped spur the investigation into
President Trump:

> Letter to AG and Director from [redacted] Citizens for
> Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and [redacted]
> National Security Archive, dated 2/8/2022, writing regarding
> President Donald Trump and other White House officials demonstrating
> a serious disregard for their recordkeeping responsibilities under
> the Presidential Records Act. Requesting DOJ investigate whether
> former President Trump violated federal criminal law by willfully
> mutilating and destroying critical records of his presidency before
> leaving office.

FBI Director Wray sent a bureau-wide email
[[link removed]]
the day after the search stating the FBI does not cut corners and does
not play favorites, while the WFO’s own internal documents show
field agents had formally disputed the probable cause basis for the
search. Director Wray’s August 11, 2022, bureau-wide message—filed
into the Plasmic Echo case file—states the investigative steps taken
were measured and scrupulously consistent with national security
obligations. This was sent the day after WFO’s internal emails
documenting its disagreement with Justice Department over probable
cause had already been filed into the same case record:

> As always, the way we maintain the trust and confidence of the
> American people isn’t by joining the public commentary. We do it
> through our work. By showing, when all the facts come out, we stuck
> to the process. We don’t cut corners. We don’t play favorites.
> We ask the tough questions – including of ourselves, making sure
> among other things that the investigative steps we take are measured
> and scrupulously consistent with our national security obligations
> and our role upholding the Constitution.

These documents show the FBI knew there was no probable cause, yet
Biden’s Justice Department pushed forward with an abusive raid on
President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home. This is a historic abuse of power
that demands full accountability. Judicial Watch will continue
pursuing additional disclosures to uncover the full truth behind one
of the most controversial federal investigations in American history.

We are at the forefront of the court battles for transparency
regarding the Biden administration’s targeting of former President
Trump.

In June 2023, we uncovered records
[[link removed]] from the
Justice Department that show top officials of the National Security
Division discussing the political implications of Trump allowing CNN
to use closed-circuit TV (CCTV) footage of the raid on his Mar-a-Lago
home. The documents confirm that the Justice Department had asked that
Mar-a-Lago CCTV be turned off before the raid.

A separate Judicial Watch lawsuit
[[link removed]] against the
National Archives and Records Administration resulted in the release
of 1,276 pages of records
[[link removed]]
[[link removed]
the unprecedented document dispute between the National Archives and
Trump. Click here
[[link removed]]
or here [[link removed]] to review the
records.

In August 2022, we sued to unseal
[[link removed]]
the search warrant affidavit
[[link removed]] used to
justify the unprecedented raid on the home of former President Trump.

In September 2022, we filed
[[link removed]]
lawsuits against the DOJ for its records and the FBI’s records about
the Mar-a-Lago raid search warrant application and approval, as well
as communications about the warrant between the FBI, Executive Office
of the President and the Secret Service.



JUDICIAL WATCH SUES FED FOR SUBPOENAS ABOUT $2.5 BILLION RENOVATION

The Deep State is trying to decorate its club house with taxpayers
picking up the bill, and we’re determined to expose the shenanigans.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
[[link removed]]
against the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System for
failing to produce the grand jury subpoenas
[[link removed]]
served in connection with allegations that Chairman Jerome H. Powell
may have misled Congress about a $2.5 billion headquarters renovation
project (_Judicial Watch Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:26-cv-01113)).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after
the Federal Reserve failed to comply with Judicial Watch’s January
26, 2026, FOIA request seeking access to the subpoenas issued by the
U.S. Department of Justice.

In a public statement
[[link removed]]
in January 2026, Powell disclosed that the Justice Department had
served the Federal Reserve with grand jury subpoenas “threatening a
criminal indictment” related to his June 2025
[[link removed]]
testimony before the Senate Banking Committee. That testimony
addressed, in part, the multi-year renovation of the historic Marriner
S. Eccles Building and the adjacent Federal Reserve East Building.

During his testimony, Powell denied the existence of luxury features
such as private dining rooms, special elevators, rooftop gardens, and
other high-end elements. The renovation project, originally estimated
at approximately $1.9 billion, has ballooned
[[link removed]]
to $2.5 billion amid questions about cost overruns.

In July 2025, U.S. Senate Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC) sent a formal oversight letter
[[link removed]]
to Powell highlighting discrepancies between the testimony and
approved renovation plans, raising concerns about transparency and
accountability for the multi-billion-dollar project. The letter points
out that previously approved plans by the National Capital Planning
Commission appear to reference some of the luxury features—raising
questions about whether the plans changed, the features were removed,
or the testimony was incomplete.

Trump administration officials, including then-Office of Management
and Budget Director Russell Vought, sharply criticized the renovation
project. Vought sent a letter
[[link removed]] to Powell on July 10,
2025, questioning the project’s management and compliance with
federal standards. Vought publicly compared
[[link removed]]
aspects of the renovation to elements that belong in France’s
“Palace of Versailles.”

In March 2026, U.S. District Chief Judge James E. Boasberg nullified
[[link removed]]
the Justice Department grand jury subpoenas. Jeanine Pirro, U.S.
attorney for the District of Columbia, announced that her office would
seek reconsideration and plans to appeal the ruling.

Hiding grand jury subpoenas only deepens suspicions and erodes trust
in our financial institutions.

FEDERAL COURT ALLOWS SUIT AGAINST EVANSTON REPARATIONS TO CONTINUE

An Illinois federal court has allowed
[[link removed]]
our class action civil rights lawsuit against the City of Evanston,
Illinois’ reparations program to move forward.

We filed the class action civil rights lawsuit
[[link removed]] in May 2024, challenging
Evanston’s use of race as an eligibility requirement for its
“Local Reparations Restorative Housing Program,” which makes
$25,000 direct cash payments to black residents and descendants of
black residents who lived in Evanston between the years 1919 and 1969
(_Flinn et al. v Evanston_
[[link removed]]
(No. 1:24-cv-04269)).

We argue that the program’s race-based eligibility program violates
the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
[[link removed]
far
[[link removed]],
137 people have received reparations payments
[[link removed]]
totaling $3.47 million.

U.S. District Judge John F. Kress rejected
[[link removed]]
the city’s attempt to dismiss the case, finding that the plaintiffs
have sufficient standing to pursue their constitutional claims and
that requiring the plaintiffs, who are white, to first file for a
program they were ineligible for due to their race was a futile
gesture.

We
[[link removed]
[[link removed]]
to the court:

> [T]he program’s use of a race-based eligibility requirement is
> presumptively unconstitutional, and remedying societal
> discrimination is not a compelling government interest. Nor has
> remedying discrimination from as many as 105 years ago or remedying
> intergenerational discrimination ever been recognized as a
> compelling government interest. Among the program’s other fatal
> flaws is that it uses race as a proxy for discrimination without
> requiring proof of discrimination.

The Constitution forbids race-based government programs like this. We
welcome the court’s decision to allow this historic lawsuit to move
forward against this woke, racist program.

We are being assisted in the lawsuit by Christine Svenson of Chalmers,
Adams, Backer & Kaufman, LLC.

In January 2025, the City of San Francisco, in a 7-3 vote by the Board
of Supervisors of the City and County of San Francisco, authorized a
settlement agreement
[[link removed]]
in a taxpayer lawsuit we brought, agreeing to discontinue its
discriminatory guaranteed-income program funded by taxpayer money in
favor of transgender individuals with a preference for biological
black and Latino men who identify as women. The agreement commits the
city to pay $3,250 in attorney fees and costs and not to create a new
guaranteed income program with the same eligibility criteria.

In September 2025, we announced that we wrote letters
[[link removed]] to
the Offices of Civil Rights in the Departments of Education and Labor
requesting they investigate the collective bargaining agreement
between the Minneapolis Public Schools and the Minneapolis Federation
of Teachers. The letters point out that the contract violates the
equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.

The City of Asheville, NC, in January 2022, settled
[[link removed]] a Judicial Watch
federal civil rights lawsuit after agreeing to remove all racially
discriminatory provisions in a city-funded scholarship program.
Additionally, the city also agreed to remove racially discriminatory
eligibility provisions in a related program that provides grants to
educators.

In December 2022, we announced the California Court of Appeal has
upheld two [[link removed]]
injunctions against California quota requirements for corporate
boards. Earlier this year, two California trial courts had found (here
[[link removed]]
and here
[[link removed]
state quota mandates for sex, race, ethnicity, and LGBT status. On
December 1, 2022, the California Court of Appeal denied (here
[[link removed]]
and here
[[link removed]])
two separate emergency requests by the California Secretary of State
to lift the injunctions.

STATES SUE USDA OVER GENDER, IMMIGRATION RULES TO GET BILLIONS

As President Trump works to undo the feverishly liberal policies of
the Biden era, recipients of the easy money from Washington are
fighting back. Our _Corruption Chronicles_ blog reports
[[link removed]].

> Twenty Democrat-run states and the District of Columbia are suing
> the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) over a new policy that
> prohibits all grant recipients from using taxpayer funds to promote
> gender ideology, benefit illegal immigrants or on programs that
> deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities or permit
> male competitive participation in women’s sports. In late December
> the federal agency that annually disburses tens of billions of
> dollars in food assistance announced the antidiscrimination rule
> [[link removed]]
> [[link removed]
> states to certify compliance with the new regulations before
> receiving money for costly welfare programs such food stamps, free
> school lunch and a special program for low-income women known as
> Women, Infants and Children (WIC) and their kids under the age of
> five. The states suing over the new requirements receive over $74
> billion annually from the USDA and they want their federal funds
> while still supporting the biased leftist policies of the previous
> administration.

> The new Trump administration policy is unconstitutional, according
> to their lawsuit
> [[link removed]],
> which alleges that the conditions are vague, arbitrary, coercive and
> unrelated to the federal interest. The complaint also accuses the
> USDA of exceeding its legal authority and imposing the measure
> without following required legal procedure. The agency has “thrown
> unconstitutional and unlawful roadblocks between the programs
> created by Congress and the States that rely on them, threatening
> critical nutrition support, vital agricultural research, and the
> safety of our national food chain and communities,” according to
> the complaint, which also accuses the USDA of imposing extraneous
> and unreasoned conditions on all programs, grants and cooperative
> agreements. The lawsuit further alleges that the spending clause of
> the U.S. Constitution requires that “funding condition be
> communicated with sufficient clarity that it can be accepted
> knowingly and voluntarily, and it prohibits coercive conditions that
> place a gun to the head of recipients that cannot forgo critical
> funding.” The “ambiguous, coercive conditions” advanced by the
> USDA “undermine the status of the States as independent sovereigns
> in our federal system,” the complaint states.

> Among the officials suing the USDA is New York Attorney General
> Letitia James, who was federally indicted
> [[link removed]]
> [[link removed]
> year with bank fraud and making false statements to a financial
> institution. She says millions of New Yorkers depend on government
> assistance to put food on the table and their benefits could be
> threatened or delayed. “The federal government cannot hold
> critical funding hostage to force states to comply with vague,
> ideological directives,” James said in a statement
> [[link removed]]
> [[link removed]
> the lawsuit. The other states suing are California, Colorado,
> Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland,
> Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon,
> Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin. New
> Jersey Attorney General Jennifer Davenport
> [[link removed]],
> who has previously filed five lawsuits “challenging unlawful grant
> conditions imposed by the Trump Administration” confidently
> asserts that the president cannot make “cruel funding
> restrictions” that, she says in this case will result in people
> going hungry. Connecticut Attorney General William Tong
> [[link removed]]
> says the administration’s immigration, diversity, equity,
> inclusion, and gender identity policies are unrelated to the purpose
> of USDA funding. “Trump’s message to Connecticut—fall in line
> with extreme MAGA ideology, or your families go hungry,” Tong
> said. “Trump wants states to sign hateful pledges that have
> absolutely nothing to do with food assistance.”

> The updated USDA funding policy is part of broader initiatives
> launched by President Trump early last year to defend women from
> gender ideology extremism and restore biological truth to the
> federal government and end the taxpayer subsidization of open
> borders
> [[link removed]].
> Under the first measure the federal government will “defend
> women’s rights and protect freedom of conscience by using clear
> and accurate language and policies that recognize women are
> biologically female, and men are biologically male,” according to
> a presidential order
> [[link removed]].
> The second aims to prevent taxpayer resources from acting as a
> magnet and fueling illegal immigration to the United States by
> ensuring that no taxpayer-funded benefits go to unqualified aliens.
> States only need to comply with the new rules to receive their
> billions in USDA funds.

HAPPY EASTER!

_“Easter says you can put truth in a grave, but it won’t stay
there.” ~ Clarence W. Hall_

In this season, Christians around the world are celebrating the
resurrection of Christ. There are no more powerful symbols of hope
than the cross and the empty tomb. From me and mine, I wish you and
yours all the joy of Easter! For those celebrating Passover, I wish
you a Happy Passover, as well!

Until next week,



[Contribute] [[link removed]]


[32x32x1] [[link removed]]

[32x32x2] [[link removed]]

[32x32x3] [[link removed]]

[32x32x3] [[link removed]]

Judicial Watch, Inc.
425 3rd St Sw Ste 800
Washington, DC 20024

202.646.5172



© 2017 - 2026, All Rights Reserved
Manage Email Subscriptions [[link removed]] |
Unsubscribe [[link removed]]

View in browser
[[link removed]]