'Stunning Revelation' in New Mar-a-Lago Report Dismissed as Inaccurate

• The National Archives recently released a statement refuting a report that suggested the federal agency misled Congress about the Biden administration's involvement in the FBI raid of former President Trump's Mar-a-Lago home.
• On Monday, America First Legal called the newly-obtained records a "stunning revelation," but the National Archives said the allegations confused its role in the matter.
• However, AFL told Newsweek that "NARA either should have known it had no authority to do what it did under the circumstances, or to use plain English, NARA got played."

A "stunning revelation" in a new report on the FBI raid at Mar-a-Lago has been dismissed by the National Archives as inaccurate.

On Wednesday, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) released a statement criticizing "recent press stories and social media posts" that have alleged it has been "untruthful" in its actions related to the federal investigation into former President Donald Trump's handling of confidential records.

"This is not accurate," NARA said. "These allegations confuse NARA's statutory role in providing access to records under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) with the DOJ investigation and the FBI's subsequent search of Mar-a-Lago." The PRA governs access to records after the end of an administration.

Earlier this week, America First Legal (AFL)—a conservative watchdog group launched by former Trump adviser Stephen Miller and endorsed by Trump himself—reported that new records obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request suggested that the NARA "misled Congress about the Biden White House's responsibility for the FBI's raid of former President Trump's home."

The NARA documents, which the AFL described as a "stunning revelation," suggested that the FBI first obtained access to the records through a "special access request" from the Biden White House

The internal NARA emails obtained by AFL were covered by conservative outlets like Fox News and the Daily Signal, which ran headlines reading "Biden administration officials were reportedly involved in Mar-a-Lago raid despite claiming otherwise" and "New Docs Tie Biden to FBI Raid on Mar-a-Lago."

In response to the reports, NARA said it had disclosed granting the FBI access to the 15 boxes of materials from Mar-a-Lago "more than seven months ago" and maintained that the Archives "had no prior knowledge of, or involvement in, the FBI's search of Mar-a-Lago, which occurred months after NARA first provided the FBI with access to the 15 boxes."

The NARA first realized documents from Trump's presidency were missing in May 2021, according to the heavily redacted affidavit from the Mar-a-Lago raid. After repeated requests for the records, representatives for the former president turned over 15 boxes of presidential records in January 2022.

Following the receipt of those 15 boxes, which contained classified materials, the NARA referred the matter to the Department of Justice, which decided to open an investigation upon its review of the referral. Trump's attorneys asked for extensions on the handing over of additional documents, which led the DOJ to subpoena Trump. But arguing that there was "probable cause" of even more records in Trump's possession, the DOJ filed an application for a search a seizure, which was granted and executed by the FBI on August 8, 2022.

After NARA dismissed AFL's report, the conservative watchdog fired back its own criticisms, saying NARA's statement about being "truthful about its activities" is inaccurate.

"NARA's allegations belie a misunderstanding of its statutory role in providing access to records under the Presidential Records Act (PRA) and indicate a belief that it was not used by the Biden Administration (whether knowingly or unknowingly) as a means to an end," Gene Hamilton, the vice president and general counsel for AFL, told Newsweek.

While NARA said it "routinely makes Presidential records in our legal custody available to all three branches of the federal government via the 'special access' provision" in its Wednesday statement, Hamilton said that authority is much more limited and cannot be used "whenever DOJ requests them as part of a fishing expedition."

"NARA either should have known it had no authority to do what it did under the circumstances, or to use plain English, NARA got played," Hamilton said.