FBI Redacted Tinubu's Name From Public Court Records

You filed a public records request with a federal agency, waited months, and got back hundreds of blacked-out pages — with the one name you were looking for nowhere to be found. That is exactly what happened to Aaron Greenspan, a pro se plaintiff (someone who represents himself in court without a lawyer) who spent over four years fighting the FBI and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) for documents about a 1990s federal investigation into a Chicago-based heroin trafficking and money-laundering ring.

What the court decided

On October 30, 2026, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the US District Court for the District of Columbia issued a ruling on the second round of summary judgment motions in the case. The court denied Greenspan's motion and granted the government's cross-motion in part — but also denied it in part. That split outcome means the government did not fully win. The case centers on Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests Greenspan submitted in 2022 and 2023 to six federal agencies, including the FBI, DEA, CIA, IRS, and others. He sought criminal investigative records about four individuals tied to the drug ring, including Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who is now the sitting president of Nigeria and joined the lawsuit as an intervenor-defendant.

In an earlier April 2025 ruling, Judge Howell had already rejected the FBI's and DEA's so-called "Glomar responses" — a legal tactic where an agency refuses to confirm or deny whether records even exist. The court found those refusals improper because public court filings from the early 1990s had already disclosed that Tinubu and another individual, Abiodun Agbele, were criminally investigated in connection with the drug operation. After losing on that point, the agencies processed hundreds of pages of records — but withheld most of them. Strikingly, not a single released document contained Tinubu's name. The FBI even produced a redacted version of a federal agent's affidavit that had been filed publicly without any redactions both in 1993 and again in this very case in 2024.

Why this matters for immigration news today

This case is a rare public look at how FOIA — the main tool Americans and immigrants use to access government records about themselves or others — works in practice when national political interests are involved. For immigrants, FOIA requests are often used to obtain one's own immigration file, FBI records, or law enforcement history that can affect a green card application, asylum case, or naturalization process. The court's willingness to push back on blanket government secrecy, even partially, signals that FOIA exemptions are not automatic shields. At the same time, the ruling shows that agencies can still withhold large volumes of records under various legal exemptions — and that challenging those withholdings in court is a long, difficult process.

What to do

• If you have submitted a FOIA request to the FBI, DEA, or another agency and received a Glomar response or heavy redactions, know that you have the right to appeal administratively and then sue in federal court if the appeal fails.
• If you need your own immigration or law enforcement records for a green card application, asylum case, or naturalization, submit a FOIA or Privacy Act request directly to USCIS, the FBI, or the relevant agency — and keep copies of every response you receive.
• If an agency redacts information that you believe is already publicly available — for example, in a court filing or news report — document those public sources carefully, as courts have found that publicly disclosed facts can undermine an agency's justification for secrecy.
• Consult an immigration lawyer if FOIA records you requested are being withheld and those records could affect your immigration case — delays or missing documents can have real consequences for pending applications.

What to do, step by step — see our guide “Appealing to the BIA”.