Biden sues DOJ to block release of audio recordings tied to special counsel probe
Former president Joe Biden speaks at an event marking the 12th anniversary of the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program in the East Room at the White House on June 18, 2024 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON, D.C.) — Former President Joe Biden filed suit against the Justice Department on Tuesday in an effort to block the release of recordings and transcripts from interviews he gave for his memoir that were central to a special counsel probe regarding his handling of classified materials after his time as vice president.
The lawsuit follows an intervention by Biden in a separate lawsuit brought by the conservative Heritage Foundation over a FOIA request that sought records from the investigation by former special counsel Robert Hur.
The audio recordings and transcripts stem from interviews Biden did with ghostwriter Mark Zwonitzer for his 2017 memoir “Promise Me, Dad: A Year of Hope, Hardship, and Purpose.”
The materials were obtained by the DOJ as part of the special counsel’s probe, which ended in February 2024, finding that Biden “willfully retained and disclosed” classified materials but recommending no criminal charges.
Biden’s lawsuit seeks to further bolster his demands that the materials not be shared with the conservative think tank or congressional Republicans, citing his right to privacy as well as allegations against DOJ that it is acting unlawfully in seeking an avenue to release the records.
“President Biden—like every American—has a right to privacy in personal conversations he had within his own home,” the lawsuit said. “That is particularly true here, where the Department obtained this information through a criminal investigation.”
Biden’s lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., said the DOJ has indicated it will release the audio recordings and transcripts to both the Heritage Foundation and the House Judiciary Committee on June 15 unless a court order blocks the release.
The lawsuit details a frenzied effort and communications between Biden’s counsel and DOJ in recent weeks to walk through potential redactions and other issues surrounding release of the audio and transcripts.
While the DOJ and career attorneys during the Biden administration had taken the position that release of the materials was a clear departure from department norms, Biden’s attorneys said the current DOJ reversed its position without any formal explanation beginning in February.
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., speaks during the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense hearing titled “A Review of the President’s FY2027 Budget Request for the Department of Defense,” in Dirksen building on Tuesday, May 12, 2026. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday he does not trust Pakistan and questioned the country’s role as a mediator in negotiations between the U.S. and Iran after a recent report suggested the Pakistanis are working closely with Iran.
“I don’t trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them,” Graham said during a Senate Appropriations subcommittee hearing with Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Dan Caine.
On Monday, CBS News reported U.S. officials told the outlet that Pakistan had allowed Iranian military aircraft to be parked at its airfields, “potentially shielding them from American airstrikes.”
CBS reported the U.S. officials, who spoke only under condition of anonymity to discuss national security issues, said that days after President Donald Trump announced the ceasefire with Iran in early April, Tehran sent multiple aircraft to Pakistan Air Force Base Nur Khan.
Leaving the White House on Tuesday for his trip to China, Trump told reporters the Pakistanis have been “great.”
“The Pakistanis have been great, the field marshal and the prime minister of Pakistan have been great,” he said.
Graham first asked Caine if the report was accurate, but Caine would not comment, citing the classified nature of the intelligence. Graham then asked Caine if such a move would be inconsistent with Pakistan’s role as a mediator.
“I wouldn’t want to comment on that based on the ongoing negotiations impact and Pakistan’s role,” Caine responded.
Graham asked Hegseth the same question.
“Again, I wouldn’t want to get in the middle of these negotiations,” Hegseth responded.
“I want to get in the middle of these negotiations,” Graham replied. “I don’t trust Pakistan as far as I can throw them. If they actually do have Iranian aircraft parked in Pakistan bases to protect Iranian military assets, that tells me we should be looking maybe for somebody else to mediate.”
“No wonder this damn thing is going nowhere,” he added.
In a statement provided to ABC News, the Pakistani Ministry of Foreign Affairs “categorically rejected” the CBS News report, suggesting it was misleading and sensationalized. The statement confirmed that Iranian aircraft are in Pakistan but said American aircraft are also allowed to use its airfields.
“Following the ceasefire and during the initial round of the Islamabad Talks, a number of aircraft from Iran and the United States arrived in Pakistan to facilitate the movement of diplomatic personnel, security teams, and administrative staff associated with the talks process,” the statement said.
“Some aircraft and support personnel remained temporarily in Pakistan in anticipation of subsequent rounds of engagement,” the statement said.
The ministry added that the aircraft within its borders “arrived during the ceasefire period and bear no linkage whatsoever to any military contingency or preservation arrangement.”
The ministry defended Pakistan’s stance as an “impartial, constructive, and responsible facilitator in support of dialogue and de-escalation.”
“Assertions suggesting otherwise are speculative, misleading, and entirely detached from the factual context,” the statement said.
A mail-in ballot issued by Hudson County, New Jersey, for the 2024 U.S. general election is seen on September 22, 2024, in Hoboken, New Jersey. (Gary Hershorn/ABC News)
(WASHINGTON) — The Supreme Court’s conservative majority on Monday appeared sympathetic to arguments by the Republican National Committee seeking to limit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day, even if they were postmarked on or before.
Many justices voiced concerns about a Mississippi law being challenged by the RNC for allowing tabulation of absentee ballots that arrive as late as five days after polls close. “Both sides agree there needs to be a final decision by the voter and receipt [of the ballot] — by somebody — by Election Day,” said Justice Neil Gorsuch. “I think the disagreement is receipt by whom.”
For more than a century, Congress has established the Tuesday after the first Monday in November as the day for election of members of the House, Senate, and presidential electors, in specified years.
Republicans argue that the term “election” means both “ballot submission and receipt” by state election officials. Mississippi and several voter advocacy groups defending the state law insist “election” means when voters make their “choice” by marking and submitting their ballots to a mailbox, drop box, or polling place.
“I think if you were looking at the text in isolation — day for the election — your first instinct might be in-person voting on that day, is what that text literally meant,” posited Justice Brett Kavanaugh, who sounded skeptical of the state law.
Thirty states plus D.C. have measures providing a grace period for voters, including military service members overseas, who rely on the Postal Service or other commercial letter carriers, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
Justice Samuel Alito suggested that allowing each state to set its own policy for late -arriving ballots has created challenges for administering a national election. “We don’t have Election Day anymore. We have election month or we have election months,” he said, skeptically.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett raised the potentially thorny prospect of states allowing voters to recall — or, change — their ballots once mailed. “Would that be illegal?” she asked Mississippi Solicitor General Scott Stewart. He said he was unaware of any instance of that happening.
The court’s three liberal justices were largely united in support of states’ ability to develop their own voting guidelines, pushing back on claims by lawyers for the RNC and Trump administration, which has advocated for “getting rid of mail-in ballots” altogether.
“The Constitution vests the issue of elections in states, unless superseded by Congress,” said Justice Sonia Sotomayor. “If there is a policy he people who should decide this issue is not the courts.”
Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson noted that, despite decades of precedent of states counting some timely-cast but late-arriving ballots, Congress has never sought to override the laws. “The idea of votes being cast and counted after an election is not new,” she said.
Justice Elena Kagan warned that the Republicans’ rationale for eliminating some mail-in ballots could also implicate early voting. “How are you not taking issue with early voting?” she asked RNC attorney Paul Clement. “You say casting and receipt [of ballots] has to be on Election Day.”
“These things have to be consummated by Election Day,” Clement replied.
“Once we go down this road,” said Kagan, “where are we going to end up?”
Most Americans, 58%, support allowing any voter to cast a ballot by mail, according to a Pew Research Center survey late last year. But there is sharp division among parties, with 83% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning voters favoring mail-voting with 68% of Republicans and Republican-leaning voters opposed.
In March 2025, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that attempted to cut federal election funding to states that have mail ballot receipt grace periods, but it has largely been blocked by federal courts for now.
Trump has also been pushing Republicans in Congress to approve the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility (SAVE America) Act, which would — in part — outlaw voting by mail for anyone without a legitimate excuse, such as military service, illness, or disability, making it impossible to vote in person.
In a nod to Trump and fraud concerns raised by many conservatives, Justice Kavanaugh suggested late-arriving ballots might “open up a risk of what might destabilize election results” — namely, a swing in election outcome as tardy votes are tabulated.
“Is that a real concern?” Kavanaugh asked Stewart. “Does that factor into how we think about how to resolve the scant text and the maybe conflicting or 21 evolving history here?”
“I certainly respect the perception,” replied Stewart, a Republican. “I think one thing notable in this case and I think helpful is that there has not been much of a showing about actual fraud from post-Election Day ballot receipt itself.”
Hundreds of thousands of mail-in ballots in the 2024 general election arrived after Election Day but were still legally counted that year across 22 states and territories with a post-election grace period, according to the U.S. Election Assistance Commssion.
Data on which party benefitted more from those ballots is not clear, neither is the impact of any possible changes to mail ballot rules following a Court decision.
Voting rights advocates warn that an abrupt change in policy could lead to widespread rejection of ballots that were properly cast by well-intended voters but experienced unintended delivery delays by the Postal Service or other circumstances.
Republicans insist there is ample time to educate the public on timely submission of mail-in ballots ahead of the November vote and that limiting late-arriving ballots could bolster election integrity.
A decision from the high court is expected by the end of June.
U.S. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard attends an event where President Donald Trump delivered an announcement on his Homeland Security Task Force in the State Dinning Room of the White House on October 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — For the first time since the start of the war, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard faced pointed questions Wednesday on whether Iran posed an “imminent threat” to the U.S. as President Donald Trump has maintained.
Lawmakers pressed Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, FBI Director Kash Patel and other national security officials on the conflict, and other global matters, on the intelligence community’s annual assessment of such worldwide threats on Capitol Hill.
The hearing came one day after the resignation of Joe Kent, the Trump administration’s top counterterrorism official, who stepped down over his objections to the war, arguing there was no “imminent threat” from Iran.
Gabbard says only Trump can determine an ‘imminent threat’ in contentious exchange
Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff pointedly questioned Gabbard about the intelligence community’s assessment on Iran’s nuclear capabilities.
President Trump previously said Iran’s nuclear program was “obliterated” by U.S. strikes last summer. Among its several justifications for the current war, however, the White House said Tehran posed an imminent nuclear threat.
“Was it the assessment of the intelligence community that there was an imminent nuclear threat posed by the Iranian regime? Yes or no?” Ossoff asked Gabbard.
“Senator, the only person who can determine what is and is not an imminent threat is the president,” Gabbard said.
Ossoff pushed back, accusing Gabbard of not answering directly because her response would contradict a statement from the White House.
“It is precisely your responsibility to determine what constitutes a threat to the United States. This is the worldwide threats hearing, where, as you noted in your opening testimony, you represent the [intelligence community’s] assessment of threats. You are here to represent the IC’s assessment of threats,” Ossoff said.
At another point in the hearing, CIA Director Ratcliffe said Iran has “been unwilling and incapable of enriching uranium to 60% as a result of” last summer’s strikes.
Lt. General James Adams, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, deferred questions about Iran’s existing nuclear capability and discussion about the possibility of U.S. boots on the ground to eliminate it to a classified session.
On Iran’s missile capabilities, Gabbard said Iran “previously demonstrated space launch and other technology it could use to begin to develop a militarily viable ICBM [Intercontinental Ballistic Missile] before 2035, should Tehran attempt to pursue that capability.”
Her remarks repeat an earlier assessment by the Defense Intelligence Agency before the U.S. and Israel began the war on Iran on Feb. 28. Gabbard said the assessment would be updated with the impact of the administration’s military campaign “Operation Epic Fury.”
Gabbard says Iranian regime appears ‘intact’ but ‘largely degraded’
In her opening statement, Gabbard provided the latest intelligence community assessment on Iran.
On the country’s current leadership, Gabbard said the regime “appears to be intact, but largely degraded due to attacks.”
“Its conventional military power projection capabilities have largely been destroyed, leaving limited options. Iran’s strategic position has been significantly degraded,” she said.
She also warned that while “internal tensions are likely to increase” inside Iran as its “economy worsens.”
“If a hostile regime survives, it will likely seek to begin a yearslong effort to rebuild its military, missiles and UAV [Unmanned Aerial Vehicle] force,” Gabbard said.
CIA director pushes back on ex-counterterrorism official
Ratcliffe told senators that Iran “posed an immediate threat” when the U.S. decided to attack the country, pushing back on the statements made by Kent when he resigned.
Kent said in his resignation letter he could not “in good conscience” support the war and argued that Iran posed “no imminent threat” to the nation.
Asked whether he believed “Iran had ceased in its nuclear ambitions, or … its desire to continue to build ballistic missiles capable of threatening American troops and allies in the Middle East” by Republican Sen. Jon Cornyn, Ratcliffe said “the intelligence reflects the contrary.”
“So you disagree with Mr. Kent?” Cornyn asked.
“I do,” Ratcliffe said.
Cornyn did not put the question to Gabbard, Kent’s former boss.
“I think Iran has been a constant threat to the United States for an extended period of time, and posed an immediate threat at this time,” Ratcliffe said.
Officials pressed on planning for Strait of Hormuz, Gabbard sidesteps
Gabbard sidestepped questions on whether she briefed the president on a probable response from Iran — which has been now beared out with Iranian strikes against U.S. partners in the region and a closure of the critical Strait of Hormuz.
Asked by Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine, whether that contingency was “communicated to the president,” Gabbard would only say that the U.S. military took “preemptive planning” measures ahead of its attack.
She later acknowledged that it’s “long been an assessment of the IC that Iran would likely hold the Strait of Hormuz as leverage.”
“Did you brief the president, if he starts a war of choice, that the likely result would be that Iran would strike adjacent Gulf nations and close the Strait of Hormuz?” Sen. Mark Warner, the top Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, asked Gabbard at one point.
“I have not and won’t divulge internal conversations,” Gabbard replied.
