A former president of the United States, Donald Trump, stated on Monday that the Federal Bureau of Investigation seized his passports during the raid on the Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida last week. He claimed via Truth Social that three passports were taken, including one that had already expired, along with other items. He characterized the FBI raid as an unprecedented political attack and criticized the agency’s conduct as resembling that seen in a third‑world nation.
Earlier, Trump urged the FBI to return documents that were seized, alleging that some materials protected by attorney‑client privilege and other executive materials had been taken. He claimed that the FBI, now infamous for its Mar-a-Lago operation, had come into possession boxes of items that they should not have received, according to his account.
A week into the search of Trump’s Florida residence, authorities reportedly gathered eleven groups of confidential documents. The former president contends that he had declassified certain documents himself, casting doubt on the classification status of the materials seized.
Prosecutor seeks secrecy surrounding a key filing
On Monday, prosecutors asked a federal judge to keep the affidavit submitted in support of a search‑warrant application confidential. They argued that public release could influence the investigation’s trajectory and potentially reveal future actions or undermine ongoing efforts to obtain credible evidence or witnesses. In a detailed 13‑page filing, the prosecutor explained the reasons for seeking confidentiality in the Florida case, noting the Southeastern region’s jurisdiction involved in the matter.
As news organizations, including major outlets, pursued access to the affidavit explaining the basis for the FBI’s search at the Mar-a-Lago property, Justice Department officials urged the judge to maintain the document under seal. The court had already authorized the search warrant last Friday, a decision made with both parties in agreement. Nevertheless, there was continued debate over whether the accompanying affidavit should be publicly available.
Beyond potential impacts on the investigation, the department warned that releasing such investigative materials could have broad consequences for the reputations and rights of those whose actions and statements are described in the affidavit, according to the department’s filing to the judge. The discussion highlighted tensions between public transparency and safeguarding sensitive investigative steps that may affect ongoing proceedings, witnesses, and future actions in the case. (Attribution: reporting from various U.S. media outlets and official court documents.)