Revealing Tinubu’s Records Could ‘Damage U.S. National Security,’ CIA Tells Court

The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has told a federal court that disclosing records related to Nigerian President Bola Tinubu could endanger national security by potentially exposing classified information, sources, and intelligence-gathering methods. The CIA’s stance, supported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), comes amid a legal case involving Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests submitted by activist Aaron Greenspan.

Greenspan’s requests, filed with multiple federal agencies—including the FBI, CIA, DEA, and U.S. Department of State—sought access to criminal investigative documents regarding Tinubu and several others allegedly linked to international drug trafficking and money laundering.

Security and Confidentiality Concerns

In response, the agencies filed a memorandum defending their refusal to release documents, invoking the “Glomar response,” which allows agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records if doing so could compromise classified information or national security interests. The CIA argued that acknowledging the presence or absence of records involving President Tinubu could unintentionally reveal sensitive intelligence, possibly identifying covert CIA sources and jeopardizing clandestine operations.

CIA Litigation Information Review Officer Mary C. Williams highlighted that the CIA’s work relies heavily on human sources who expect confidentiality. Disclosing even the possibility of records on a foreign leader like Tinubu, she argued, could jeopardize CIA operations by risking retaliatory threats against sources or their families. Williams stressed that an entire network of sources could be compromised by such disclosures.

Legal Background and the Glomar Defense

The “Glomar response,” originating from a 1976 case involving the secret CIA recovery vessel Hughes Glomar Explorer, is applied when merely confirming or denying record existence could compromise intelligence or reveal sources and methods. According to the agencies, the exemptions under FOIA—particularly Exemptions 1 and 3, which protect classified information—support the Glomar response in the Tinubu case.

The FBI and DEA also cited FOIA Exemptions 6 and 7(C), emphasizing privacy concerns for individuals referenced in investigative records. They argued that any public disclosure would subject those individuals to undue attention and harassment, thus infringing on their privacy rights.

Court’s Position and Recent Developments

The District Court for the District of Columbia previously declined an emergency application to expedite the release of Tinubu-related records, agreeing with the agencies’ stance. The latest filings continue to uphold the Glomar response, asserting that disclosing the existence of records related to Tinubu could lead to “logical and plausible” risks to national security.

Court documents detailed that previous attempts to argue an official acknowledgment of such records’ existence, based on publicly available information, had been unsuccessful. The agencies clarified that any such acknowledgment must come directly from the involved agency, which had not occurred in this instance.

CIA and Intelligence Community’s Strict Secrecy Requirements

According to Williams, the CIA adheres to strict confidentiality standards across all FOIA requests, issuing Glomar responses consistently. This approach, she explained, ensures that no unintended disclosures reveal classified information about CIA methods, alliances, or intelligence sources, whether or not records exist.