EXCLUSIVE: Trump Ally Jeanine Pirro Urges U.S. Court To Keep FBI, DEA Records On Tinubu Withheld
EXCLUSIVE: Trump Ally Jeanine Pirro Urges U.S. Court To Keep FBI, DEA Records On Tinubu Withheld
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, led by Jeanine Pirro, has asked a federal court to rule in favour of the FBI and Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) in a legal battle over the release of historical law-enforcement records concerning Nigerian President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.
The request was contained in a September 23, 2026 court filing in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit brought by transparency activist Aaron Greenspan against the Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys and other federal agencies.
In the filing, the U.S. government asked the court to grant summary judgment to the FBI and DEA, arguing that the agencies conducted reasonable searches and properly withheld or redacted information protected under federal law.
The government’s submission was signed by Assistant U.S. Attorney Samantha-Josephine Baker. It stated that the FBI searched separately for the names “Bola” and “Tinubu” and manually reviewed pages in a multi-subject file in an effort to address concerns about search terms and possible misspellings.
The agencies also maintained that they had released information that could legally be separated from material they considered exempt from disclosure.
Several FOIA exemptions were cited by the government. According to the filing, releasing some of the records could expose federal grand-jury information, pen-register data, internal prosecutorial strategies, confidential sources, investigative techniques and private individuals’ identities.
The government also relied on an exemption covering law-enforcement information where disclosure could potentially endanger an individual’s life or physical safety.
Pirro’s office subsequently urged the court to grant the government’s motion in favour of the FBI and DEA, stating in the filing that the court should enter judgment for the two agencies.
The development comes as Greenspan continues his legal effort to obtain historical FBI and DEA records relating to Tinubu and other individuals. His FOIA requests were filed in 2022 and 2023 and concern investigations dating back to the late 1980s and early 1990s.
The lawsuit followed an April 2025 ruling by U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell, who rejected the FBI and DEA’s attempt to use a “Glomar” response for the records at issue. A Glomar response allows an agency to neither confirm nor deny whether it possesses particular records.
The court directed the agencies to search for responsive records and process material that was not exempt from disclosure. However, the ruling did not order the agencies to release every record and did not determine whether allegations concerning Tinubu were true.
Tinubu’s lawyers have separately asked the court to uphold the agencies’ redactions and withholding of records. They argue that some of the requested documents concern Tinubu’s private interests and that disclosure could violate his privacy rights.
The President’s legal team has also relied on FOIA exemptions protecting personal information contained in law-enforcement records, arguing that public interest in an individual does not automatically override legally protected privacy interests.
The case has attracted additional attention because Greenspan has identified three U.S. court cases that he says are connected to a historical investigation involving a heroin-trafficking and money-laundering network.
According to Greenspan, the cases include a 1992 criminal prosecution, a separate case involving Nigerian businessman Abiodun Agbele, and a civil forfeiture proceeding involving approximately US$460,000 held in an account in Tinubu’s name.
Greenspan has also raised the possibility that a fourth case involving Tinubu could exist, potentially in the form of a sealed criminal indictment. However, he has acknowledged that he has no conclusive evidence that such an indictment exists.
The civil forfeiture matter involved funds that U.S. court records described in connection with alleged narcotics trafficking or transactions prohibited under U.S. law. However, the proceeding was a civil forfeiture case and did not constitute a criminal conviction of Tinubu.
The Nigerian Presidency has repeatedly stressed this distinction. Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy Bayo Onanuga described the Washington proceedings as a civil FOIA dispute rather than a criminal case against Tinubu, and said the court had not found the Nigerian President guilty of criminal wrongdoing.
The FBI and DEA have reportedly produced hundreds of pages in response to the litigation, with portions withheld or redacted under exemptions relating to grand-jury material, confidential sources, investigative techniques and personal privacy.
The latest filing therefore leaves the central issue before the court as whether the agencies have complied with their obligations under FOIA and whether the withheld portions of the records are legally protected from disclosure.
The case remains a dispute over access to U.S. government records. It has not established that Tinubu committed a crime, nor has the court ruled that the historical allegations cited in connection with the records are true.
