Judicial
Watch Sues for Records on Crossfire Hurricane
Investigation

We are working to get the entire
record on the Obama/Biden Justice Department lawfare against President
Trump. It is the worst government corruption scandal in U.S. history, and
the American people deserve to see the whole story.
We filed a
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Justice for fully unredacted records and
previously withheld or missing portions of Durham’s investigation into
the origins of Crossfire Hurricane/Russiagate (Judicial
Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.
1:26-cv-00138)).
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District
of Columbia after the Justice Department failed to respond to an August 5,
2025, FOIA request for:
- The complete, unredacted notes taken by
former CIA Director John Brennan during the August 3, 2016, White House
briefing, which reportedly discussed intelligence regarding a Hillary
Clinton campaign plan to link Donald Trump to Russia.
- The full,
unredacted Inspection Division Report from the Department of Justice Office
of the Inspector General that critiques
the FBI’s handling of the Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
- The
14 missing pages of the Durham Report appendix that have not been publicly
released.
- All unredacted transcripts, summaries, or notes from
interviews conducted by Special Counsel John Durham with the following
individuals regarding the 2016 election and related
investigations:
- Hillary Clinton (interviewed May 2022)
- John
Brennan (interviewed August 2020)
- Stefan Halper
- Alexander
Downer
- Jake Sullivan (interviewed November 2021)
- John
Podesta (interviewed January 2022)
- Robby Mook
- All
unredacted records of referrals made by Special Counsel John Durham to the
Department of Defense or any other federal agencies.
- All emails and communications between Fusion GPS and
The New York Times, The Washington Post, or other major
media outlets as well as
between Fusion GPS and the Hillary Clinton campaign or the Democratic
National Committee (DNC).
- All unredacted emails, memoranda, or
other communications between former head of British intelligence Sir
Richard Dearlove, U.S. intelligence officials (including CIA and FBI
personnel), Stefan Halper, and Christopher Steele.
In July
2016, during the presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and
Hillary Clinton, the FBI’s Counterintelligence Division opened the Crossfire
Hurricane investigation. In August 2016, then-CIA Director John Brennan
briefed
President Obama and other senior officials on intelligence reportedly
showing a Hillary Clinton campaign plan to link Trump to Russia.
In
May 2019, Durham was appointed
special counsel to investigate the origins and conduct of the FBI’s
Crossfire Hurricane investigation.
In May 2023, Durham released his
final
report,
concluding that the FBI opened a full investigation based on “raw,
unanalyzed and uncorroborated intelligence” and displayed “confirmation
bias” in pursuing the investigation. The report noted problems with
the FISA (Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) surveillance practices,
noting that unverified information from the Steele dossier was used to help
justify FISA applications targeting Trump campaign adviser Carter Page. The
report also noted that an FBI lawyer, Kevin Clinesmith, pleaded guilty to
altering an email used in a FISA application.
In July 2025, Senate
Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-IA) made public the formerly
classified Appendix (“Durham Annex”) to John Durham’s 2023
Special Counsel report, which “contains previously classified information
exposing a reported Clinton campaign plan to falsely tie President Donald
Trump to Russia.”
We have been instrumental in uncovering much of
what the public knows about Crossfire Hurricane/Russiagate, which involved
a long list of Democratic political figures, lawyers, and staffers who
shaped the narrative around the Trump-Russia hoax.
In November 2025,
we provided an in-depth
recap of the Crossfire Hurricane/Russiagate debacle.
In May 2025,
we sued
the Justice Department for all records regarding the FBI, under
then-Director James Comey, initiating an investigation of hen-presidential
candidate Donald Trump in 2016.
In October 2020, we uncovered
heavily redacted email communications among top-level U.S. State Department
officials and a U.S. ambassador
expressing skepticism about reports by Steele’s London-based private
intelligence firm Orbis Business Intelligence. (Steele was the author of
the Clinton-funded, anti-Trump dossier.) The emails show one assistant
secretary of state saying some of Steele’s reports sound “extreme”
and others “do not ring true,” while the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine
called some of the Steele reports “flaky.”
In May 2020, we forced
the declassification and release of the “electronic
communication” used to launch Crossfire Hurricane, written by former
FBI official Peter Strzok.
In April 2020, we obtained emails
between former FBI official Peter Strzok and former FBI attorney Lisa Page,
including an email dated January 10, 2017, in which Strzok said that the
version of the dossier published by BuzzFeed was “identical”
to the version given to the FBI by McCain and had “differences” from
the dossier provided to the FBI by Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson and
Mother Jones reporter David Corn. January 10, 2017, is the same
day BuzzFeed published the anti-Trump dossier by former British
spy Steele. The emails also show Strzok and other FBI agents mocking
President Trump a few weeks before he was inaugurated. In addition, the
emails revealed that Strzok communicated with then-Deputy Director Andrew
McCabe about the “leak investigation” tied to the Clinton Foundation
(the very leak in which McCabe was later implicated).
In September
2019, we released State Department records
revealing that Steele had an extensive and close working relationship
dating back to May of 2014 with high-ranking Obama State Department
officials including Jonathan Winer and
Victoria Nuland.
In August 2019, we obtained “302”
report material from 2016 FBI interviews of Associate Deputy U.S.
Attorney Bruce Ohr, who was removed from his position in December 2017. (A
Form 302 is used by FBI agents to memorialize interviews they undertake
during an investigation.) In a November 22, 2016, interview, Ohr said that
“reporting on Trump’s ties to Russia were going to the Clinton
Campaign, Winer at the State Department and the FBI.” In a late September
2016 interview, Ohr described a person (likely Christopher Steele) as
“desperate
that Donald Trump not get elected and was passionate about him not being
the U.S. President.” A report states that “Ohr knew that [Fusion
GPS’s] Glenn Simpson and others were talking to Victoria Nuland at the
U.S. State Department.”
In July 2019, we obtained records
revealing a September 2016 email exchange between then-Assistant Secretary
of State Victoria Nuland and Special Coordinator for Libya, Winer, who was
a close associate of dossier author Steele,
discussing a “face-to-face” meeting on a “Russian matter.”
In
August 2018, the Justice Department admitted in a Judicial Watch FOIA
lawsuit court filing that the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court held
no
hearings on the FISA spy warrant applications targeting Carter Page, a
former Trump campaign part-time adviser who was the subject of four
controversial FISA warrants.
In July 2018, we released records
about FISA warrants targeting Page, which appeared to confirm that the FBI
and DOJ misled the FISA court by withholding material information showing
that Hillary Clinton’s campaign and the DNC were behind the
“intelligence” used to persuade the court to approve the FISA warrants
targeting the Trump team.
Judicial Watch Sues
Justice Dept. Over FBI Celebrating Peter Navarro
Prosecution
With the Clintons in the news for refusing a
congressional subpoena, it is instructive to look back at how the Left used
subpoenas against
Trump’s team.
We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit
against the U.S. Department of Justice for communications of Federal Bureau
of Investigation (FBI) agents regarding the prosecution of former Trump
trade adviser Peter Navarro (Judicial
Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of
Justice (No. 1:26-cv-00079)).
Navarro was sentenced
on January 24, 2024, to four months in prison for refusing to appear before
the U.S. Congress to give testimony and produce documents as required by a
subpoena he received from the Democrat-led Select Committee to Investigate
the January 6th Attack on the United States Capitol.
The
politicization of the Justice Department and FBI against President Trump
and his advisers is a disgrace. The lives of outstanding public servants
were derailed.
We sued in the U.S. District Court for the
District of Columbia after the Justice Department failed to respond
adequately to a May 2, 2025, FOIA request for:
- Records and communications of Special Agent Walter
Giardina; Supervisory Special Agent Blaire Toleman; and Assistant Special
Agent in Charge Timothy Thibault about the investigation, arrest,
indictment, or prosecution of Peter Navarro – including contempt of
Congress referrals regarding Navarro or any former Trump administration
officials.
Giardina was
fired from the FBI in 2025, Toleman also was
fired in 2025, and Thibault resigned
in 2022.
In April 2025 Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck
Grassley (R-IA) issued a
letter to the Justice Department and FBI pointing out the results of an
initial search into the FBI’s political weaponization against Navarro. In
May 2025 Grassley released
a few FBI emails
showing Biden administration FBI agents planning and celebrating the
indictment of Navarro.
We have actively pursued transparency for the
lawfare waged against Trump.
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
President-elect Donald Trump (Judicial
Watch Inc. v U.S. Department of
Justice (No. 1:25-cv-03849)).
In September 2025 we sued
the Justice Department 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 launched a related
lawsuit against the Justice Department for records about the FBI’s
investigation of Trump codenamed “Arctic Frost,” which was part of the
Biden administration effort to prosecute and jail President Trump for
disputing Biden’s controversial election victory (Judicial
Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.
1:25-cv-02011)).
In March 2025, we sued
the Justice Department for details of any investigations, inquiries, or
referrals concerning potential misconduct of any person working for Special
Counsel Jack Smith (Judicial
Watch Inc. v U.S. Department of
Justice (No. 1:25-cv-00801)).
Also in March, Georgia
District Attorney Fani Willis was
ordered to turn over 212 pages of records to a state court judge. The
court also ordered Willis to detail how the records were found and the
reason for withholding them from the public. The records were belatedly
disclosed in response to a Judicial Watch request and lawsuit for
communications with Special Counsel Jack Smith and the House January 6
Committee.
In January, we were awarded $21,578
for “attorney’s fees and costs” incurred in the case. The court
previously found Willis in default
and stated: “The Court finds Defendant [Willis, in her official capacity]
is in default and has been since 11 April 2024” (Judicial
Watch Inc. v. Fani Willis et al.
(No. 24-CV-002805)).
In January 2025, a
federal court ordered the Justice Department to provide us information
on communications between Special Counsel Jack Smith and Willis regarding
the prosecution of then-former President Donald Trump. In May, the Justice
Department was directed to search text messages from the Special
Counsel’s Office for responsive records (Judicial
Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 23-cv-03110)).
In
January 2025, records
from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) showed it and the FBI
warning that law enforcement agencies should be prepared for a surge in
threats from so-called Domestic Violence Extremists
(DVEs) following the August 8, 2022, FBI raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago
estate in Palm Beach, Florida (Judicial
Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security
(1:22-cv-03275)).
In May 2024, we uncovered
a recording of a phone message left by an FBI special agent for someone at
the Secret
Service in the context of the raid on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago home (Judicial
Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security (No. 1:22-cv-03147)).
In February
2024, the Justice Department asked
a federal court to allow the agency to keep secret the names of top
staffers
working in Special Counsel Jack Smith’s office that was targeting Trump
and other Americans (Judicial
Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice (No.
1:23-cv-01485)).
In August 2022, we successfully sued to unseal the
search
warrant affidavit used to justify the unprecedented raid on Trump’s
home
(U.S.
v. Sealed Search Warrant (No.
9:22-mj-08332)).
Judicial Watch
Sues Chicago Treasurer Over Plan to Halt U.S. Treasury
Purchases
We filed an Illinois Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA) lawsuit
against Melissa Conyears-Ervin, treasurer of the City of Chicago, for
details of her declared plan to stop buying new U.S. Treasury securities
and divest the city of indirect holdings (Judicial
Watch Inc. v. Chicago Treasurer’s Office (No.
2026CH00302)).
On November 17, 2025, Conyears-Ervin issued a press
release announcing that the city of Chicago “will not invest in a
federal administration that is using the power of government to terrorize
us.” She also stated:
Before my budget presentation on
Wednesday, I informed City Council members that I would boycott the
purchase of United States Treasury securities and seek their authority to
grant me freedoms to modify the portfolio of the nearly $11 billion in
Chicago taxpayer money the office
manages.
[We will] immediately stop making
new, direct purchases of U.S. Treasury marketable securities. Second, with
approval from the City Council, we will explore reducing our indirect
exposure by adjusting our holdings in money market funds and other
instruments that derive their value from Treasurys.
We
sued in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Chancery Division, after the
Treasurer’s Office failed to respond to a November 17, 2025, FOIA request
for:
- All internal Chicago City Treasurer’s Office
(CTO) emails discussing whether to purchase U.S. Treasury debt in any
form.
- Internal emails and communications from Treasurer Melissa
Conyears-Ervin referencing U.S. Treasury securities and immigration-related
terms; and
- Reports regarding the fiscal impact of purchasing or
declining to purchase U.S. debt.
Conyears-Ervin should focus on
Chicago’s crumbling finances instead of playing national policy maven and
engaging in symbolic political stunts that risk taxpayer money and could
undermine the city’s fiscal stability.
In December 2025, we reported
that Illinois released more than 1,700 criminal aliens from jails and
prisons across the state after declining to honor federal immigration
detainers.
In November 2025, we sued
Evanston, IL, Mayor Daniel Biss for records related to obstruction of
federal immigration enforcement.
In January 2025, we sued
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson for records regarding his vow to resist the
Trump administration’s deportation and other immigration law enforcement
activities. The mayor
previously had held a press conference at which he stated that Chicago
would remain a so-called “sanctuary
city.”
Americans Pay Billions to Subsidize
Illegal Aliens’ College Education
Worried about affording
college tuition for your children? If so, you might want to know that your
tax dollars are going – against the law – to illegal aliens for their
tuition. Our Corruption Chronicles blog has the details.
Although
a 30-year-old federal law prohibits giving illegal aliens discounted
in-state tuition at public colleges and universities, 22 states and the
District
of Columbia still do it and the cost to American taxpayers is over a
billion dollars annually. In an effort to force the violators to stop
offering undocumented students the pricey benefit, a U.S. senator has
introduced a bill (Put
American Students First Act) to specifically prevent any alien who is
not lawfully admitted for permanent residence from obtaining in-state
tuition rates at public institutions of higher education. The proposed
measure notes that section 505 of the Illegal Immigration Reform and
Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 already bans states from granting
discounted tuition and fees to students not
lawfully present in the U.S. simply because they live—albeit
illegally—in that state unless the same rates are also offered to
citizens of the United States regardless of residence.
Besides the
discounted tuition, most of the offenders also extend additional financial
aid to students in the country illegally. The Trump administration has
legally challenged many of the policies, but most continue. The violators
include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois,
Kansas, Maryland, Massachusetts, Nebraska, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico,
New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Virginia and Washington.
Last year the Department of Justice (DOJ) sued several states over the
policy but only three—Texas, Oklahoma and Kentucky—have terminated
their in-state tuition policies for illegal alien students. Others, such as
California, Oregon, Washington, Colorado and Illinois, have ignored the
lawsuits. Illinois has
taken it a step further by not only blowing off the DOJ’s lawsuit,
but also passing a special law
making undocumented students eligible for state and local financial aid,
including grants,
scholarships and stipends, as of January 2026. The measure includes the
same perks for transgender students who are disqualified for failing to
register for selective service.
Over 500,000
illegal immigrants are enrolled in U.S. institutions of higher
education, according to an alliance of college and university leaders
dedicated to supporting immigrant and undocumented students and policies
that create a welcoming environment for them. The Washington, D.C.-based
group, Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, reveals
that three-quarters of undocumented
students live in about a dozen states and most are in just four
states—California, Texas, Florida, and New York—and California leads
the group with nearly 90,000 illegal alien students. The alliance insists
that offering students in the country illegally discounted tuition at
taxpayer-funded colleges is “tuition equity” and provides access to
higher education for all students, which the group claims benefits colleges
and universities as well as the U.S. economy. “Undocumented students are
an integral part of American society and the U.S. higher education
system,” the group claims. “They advance scientific innovation, drive
economic growth, and make valuable contributions as classmates,
instructors, scholars, and campus leaders.”
But are American
taxpayers responsible for funding their education in rogue states that
refuse to obey a decades-old federal law forbidding it? In an effort to
force compliance, Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton
introduced the Put American Students First Act in mid-December. The bill
points out that the subsidies create a perverse incentive for illegal
immigration, rewarding unlawful presence with benefits unavailable to
citizens and legal residents of the United States, undermining the rule of
law. “Students of the United States in higher education, including
students from modest-income families in neighboring States, are effectively
penalized by States that provide such subsidies because the students pay
higher out-of-state rates for tuition and fees while aliens not lawfully
admitted for permanent residence receive taxpayer-subsidized discounts,”
the proposed law states. “Enforcing this Federal prohibition nationwide
is essential to restoring fairness, deterring illegal immigration, and
prioritizing postsecondary education benefits for citizens and lawful
permanent residents of the United States.” If Congress passes the law, it
will take
effect in July and will empower the Secretary of Education to withhold
funding from any state that violates
it.
Until next week,
