Internal Emails Reveal FBI Warned DOJ of Insufficient Evidence for Mar-a-Lago Raid
Washington, Tuesday, 16 December 2025.
House Speaker Mike Johnson confirmed today, December 16, 2025, that forthcoming internal emails demonstrate a significant conflict between the FBI and the Department of Justice regarding the 2022 Mar-a-Lago raid. The most intriguing revelation is that the FBI’s Washington field office explicitly warned Biden administration officials that they had not established probable cause to search former President Trump’s estate, yet were pressured to proceed regardless. This disclosure challenges the asserted legal justification for the operation and suggests a disregard for standard investigative protocols due to departmental pressure. As these documents are prepared for release to Congress, the narrative shifts from a procedural dispute to a broader analysis of potential politicization within federal law enforcement, specifically regarding how legal thresholds were navigated during the investigation into the former President’s handling of classified records.
Divergence on Probable Cause
The internal communications, reviewed by Fox News Digital, highlight a stark disagreement between the FBI’s Washington Field Office (WFO) and the Department of Justice (DOJ) in the months leading up to the August 2022 raid [1]. Specifically, FBI officials expressed concern that the affidavit drafted for the search warrant relied on information that was “single source,” had not been corroborated, and was potentially “dated” [1]. An Assistant Special Agent in Charge noted in an email that “very little has been developed related to who might be culpable for mishandling the documents,” signaling a lack of concrete evidence to support the operation [1]. Despite these warnings from agents on the ground, the DOJ’s Counterintelligence and Export Control Section (CES) maintained that the warrant application met the necessary probable cause standard, effectively overruling the investigative team’s hesitations [1].
Operational Disagreements and Alternative Options
Beyond the legal threshold for the warrant, the emails reveal a conflict regarding the tactical approach to the investigation. FBI officials advocated for a less intrusive strategy, suggesting a “reasonable conversation” with former President Trump’s legal counsel or other collaborative methods to recover the materials [1][4]. One agent argued that proceeding with a raid without attempting these alternatives could be “counterproductive” and noted that the team was consuming time without generating new facts [1][4]. This stands in contrast to the DOJ’s insistence on the raid, which ultimately recovered 102 documents with classification markings, including 17 labeled “Top Secret” [4]. However, the FBI’s initial resistance underscores a significant deviation from standard procedure where law enforcement typically seeks to exhaust less adversarial options before executing a search warrant on a high-profile political figure [1][4].
Political Fallout and Congressional Oversight
The release of these documents has immediate political ramifications in Washington. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Louisiana Republican, stated on Tuesday that the emails would “verify” and “confirm” Republican claims regarding the “weaponization” of the Justice Department under the Biden administration [2]. The emails were brought to light as Attorney General Pam Bondi and FBI Director Kash Patel prepared to transfer them to the House and Senate Judiciary Committees [2][3]. Johnson emphasized that while he had not yet personally reviewed the full cache of emails as of Tuesday, the reports suggest a systemic failure to adhere to probable cause standards, aimed at targeting political opponents [2]. This narrative is further complicated by the fact that the charges stemming from the investigation were dismissed by Judge Aileen Cannon in July 2024, citing the unconstitutionality of the special counsel’s appointment [4].
Implications for Special Counsel Jack Smith
These revelations surface at a critical moment for former Special Counsel Jack Smith, who is scheduled to appear for a closed-door deposition before the House Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, December 17, 2025 [2][3]. Although Smith was appointed months after the August 2022 raid, the inquiry is expected to focus heavily on the origins of the investigation and the decision-making processes that he inherited and continued [2]. Speaker Johnson has indicated that accountability is a priority, suggesting that the upcoming testimony will be pivotal in addressing what he termed abuses of the justice system [2]. As the committees review the internal warnings from the FBI’s Washington Field Office—specifically their belief that they had “not established probable cause”—scrutiny over the legitimacy of the entire probe is expected to intensify [3][4].