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.
President Donald Trump speaks to the press near the construction site of his proposed ballroom at the White House in Washington, May 19, 2026. (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
(WASHINGTON) — President Donald Trump, over the noise of drills and hammers, showed off the construction site for his controversial White House ballroom in a tour with reporters on Tuesday.
Trump described the massive project, which started with a demolition of the White House East Wing, as a fortress for himself and future presidents.
“This is a shield that protects everything that’s inside, everything that’s on top,” Trump said. He also said that it would be the “safest building ever built, in my opinion.”
With poster board mock-ups in hand of what the finished product will look like, Trump spoke above the hollowed construction site. The underground complex, Trump said, will be six stories deep and include a military hospital, research facilities and meeting rooms.
“Impenetrable steel” and window glass that is “approximately four inches thick” are among the security features, according to Trump. The roof, he said, will have “massive drone capacity” and will act as a “drone port” so “it protects all of Washington.”
Asked for additional detail about a “drone port,” the White House offered no additional explanation, referring ABC News to Trump’s comments Tuesday morning.
In March, a judge rules that Trump can’t build the ballroom without authorization from Congress, though he said security-related work could go on. An appeals court then stepped in to allow all construction of the project for now while they consider the case more fully. A hearing in the case is set for June 5.
Trump on Tuesday appeared to argue that the entire building was interconnected.
“The roof goes with the ground floor; the ground floor goes with the roof. The roof also goes down into the basement. Everything is connected. Intertwined, elevators, heating, air conditioning. It’s one building. That’s why we’re trying to explain that this is one well-knit building,” Trump said.
During the tour, Trump also maintained his claims that the White House ballroom itself will not cost any taxpayer money.
“So, all of this was paid for by myself. And because I keep hearing like I’m not. We are making a gift of this. This is a gift. This is not going to be paid for by the taxpayer,” Trump said.
The president, who has said that he is one of the people paying for the project, has not publicly released how much he has donated. The White House also said they aimed to raise the funds for the ballroom, the cost of which jumped to $400 million, through private donations.
“This is a gift to the United States of America, and more than a gift. It’s going to be one of the most beautiful buildings that’s ever been built in the country or in Washington, D.C.,” Trump said on Tuesday.
His comments come as some congressional Republicans seek $1 billion in funding, some of which would go to the building project. Democrats have panned the proposal.
“Congress is approving money for security … But this building, I mean, I — I put up the money to build this building, along with a lot of great patriots,” Trump said.
(WASHINGTON) — In an 8-1 decision, the Supreme Court on Tuesday struck down Colorado’s ban on so-called “conversion therapy” for minors as a violation of counselors’ free speech rights under the First Amendment.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
(WASHINGTON) — Solicitor General D. John Sauer got a somewhat frosty reception from at least two key Supreme Court Justices — Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch — as oral arguments in the Supreme Court’s landmark birthright citizenship case got underway Wednesday.
President Donald Trump arrived at the Supreme Court Wednesday morning, making him the first sitting president to attend the high court’s arguments.
Trump is asking the justices to uphold his Day 1 executive order eliminating birthright citizenship under a novel interpretation of the 14th Amendment and requiring parents to prove their own legal status before citizenship is granted to their children.
Roberts noted that the Trump administration is relying on “very quirky” arguments, saying they are using “narrow exceptions” to claim that a much broader class of people should be ineligible for birthright citizenship.
“You know, children of ambassadors, children of enemies during a hostile invasion, children on warships, and then you expand it to the whole class of illegal aliens here in the country. I’m not quite sure how you can get to that big group from such tiny and sort of idiosyncratic examples,” said Roberts.
Gorsuch also remarked that the Trump administration seems to be relying on outdated “Roman law sources” and court precedents that do not work in their favor.
“I’m not sure how much you want to rely on Wong Kim Ark,” Gorsuch remarked about the landmark 1898 case that enshrined birthright citizenship.
Justice Elena Kagan similarly voices concerns about the sources cited by the Trump administration.
“You’re using some pretty obscure sources to get to this concept,” she said.
Justice Samuel Alito initiated a discussion on “illegal immigration” by noting that it was “something that was basically unknown” at the time when the 14th amendment was adopted in the 1860s.
“What we’re dealing with here is something that was basically unknown at the time when the 14th Amendment was adopted, which is illegal immigration,” Alito said. “So how do we deal with that situation when we have a general rule?”
Sauer responded by agreeing with Alito, saying that “illegal immigration did not exist [then],” and “the problem of temporary visitors didn’t exist.”
Sauer pointed to “commentators” from 1881 to 1922 who, he claimed, were “uniformly saying the children of temporary visitors are not included.” He argued that this logic “naturally extends” to those who enter the country illegally.
Justice Elena Kagan challenged Sauer’s argument on immigration, saying his arguments in his brief did not focus on “illegal immigration.”
“Most of your brief is about people who are just temporarily in the country where there was quite clearly an experience of an understanding that there were going to be temporary inhabitants,” Kagan said. “And your whole theory of the case is built on that group.”
“You don’t get to talking about undocumented persons until quite later, and at much lesser … I think it’s like 10 pages to three pages or something like that,” she said.
Sauer began his arguments by arguing that the longstanding understanding of the 14th Amendment is incorrect.
“The citizenship clause was adopted just after the Civil War to grant citizenship to the newly freed slaves and their children whose allegiance to the United States had been established by generations of domicile. Here, it did not grant citizenship to the children of temporary visitors or illegal aliens who have no such allegiance,” he said.
In his opening statements, Sauer laid out one of the Trump administration’s key arguments about why birthright citizenship should not be extended to the children of undocumented immigrants, claiming that if it remains “unrestricted” it will continue to be a “pull factor for illegal immigration” and would “reward” immigrants who violate immigration laws.
“It has spawned a sprawling industry of birth tourism as uncounted thousands of foreigners from potentially hostile nations have flocked to give birth in the United States in recent decades, creating a whole generation of American citizens abroad with no meaningful ties to the United States,” Sauer said.
The Trump administration has often claimed that birth tourism — the idea that foreign nationals travel to the U.S. with the sole purpose of having a child here — poses a national security risk and undermines birthright citizenship.
Justice Roberts pressed Sauer to explain how common the problem is, but Sauer was unable to give a clear answer.
“No one knows for sure. There’s a March 9 letter from a number of members of Congress to DHS saying, ‘Do we have any information about this?’ The media reports indicate estimates could be over one million, or 1.5 million from the People’s Republic of China alone. The congressional report that we cite in our brief talks about certain hotspots, like Russian elites coming to Miami through these birth tourism companies,” Sauer said.
Sauer went on to claim that media reports indicate there are 500 “birth tourism companies” in China, prompting Justice Roberts to interject to ask if Sauer agreed that had “no impact on the legal analysis before us.”
“We’re in a new world now as Justice Alito pointed out, to where 8 billion people are one plane ride away from having a child who is a U.S. citizen,” Sauer added later.
In a statement this morning, ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero addressed Trump’s attendance at the proceedings, saying he will “watch the ACLU school him in the meaning of the Constitution and birthright citizenship.”
“Any effort to distract from the gravity and importance of this case will not succeed. The Supreme Court is up to the task of interpreting and defending the Constitution even under the glare of a sitting president a couple dozen feet away from them,” he said.
Although the proceedings should provide a sense of how interested the judges are in Trump’s reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment, a ruling in the case isn’t expected until the end of June.
This is a developing story. Please check back for updates.
