U.S. DEA Gives Fresh Reasons for Keeping Tinubu Records Secret

The United States Drug Enforcement Administration has offered fresh justifications for withholding portions of investigative records linked to President Bola Tinubu, citing the need to protect confidential sources and sensitive law enforcement techniques.

In a court filing dated September 23, 2026, the US government defended the DEA’s decision to redact or withhold parts of the documents sought by American transparency activist Aaron Greenspan under the Freedom of Information Act.

The case, Greenspan v. Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys et al., is a civil FOIA dispute before the US District Court for the District of Columbia. It is not a criminal prosecution of Tinubu.

According to the filing, the DEA relied on sworn declarations and a Vaughn Index to explain why particular portions of the records could not be released under FOIA exemptions.

The government said the DEA’s records include various investigative documents generated during law enforcement activities, including DEA-6, DEA-292, and DEA-210 reports.

Greenspan had questioned why several entries in the DEA’s Vaughn Index appeared to contain similar explanations for withholding information. The government rejected the argument that the similarities made the index inadequate, explaining that the documents belonged to similar categories of investigative records.

A major part of the DEA’s argument concerns confidential sources. The government said the agency was entitled to protect information that could identify people who supplied information to investigators.

The filing quoted the DEA’s declaration as stating that any information related to confidential sources “could reasonably be expected to disclose the identity of a confidential source”.

The agency further argued that information concerning confidential sources “has long been afforded the most comprehensive protection of all the FOIA exemptions”.

“Due to the significant protections afforded to prevent the disclosure of this type of information, DEA determined that the significance of exempting this type of information outweighed the relatively insignificant public interest in the disclosure of the information,” the agency said.

The US government also defended the DEA’s reliance on FOIA Exemption 7(E), which covers certain law enforcement records where disclosure could reveal investigative techniques and procedures not generally known to the public.

The documents at issue arose from what the government described as “a criminal investigation of a drug operation”.

The filing does not reveal what the withheld records contain, what confidential sources allegedly told investigators, or whether the records establish any criminal conduct by Tinubu. It also does not disclose the identity of any confidential source or reveal the contents of interviews or investigative reports that remain protected.

The dispute dates back to FOIA requests Greenspan submitted to several US federal agencies in 2022 and 2023, seeking historical records relating to investigations involving Tinubu and other individuals connected to an alleged drug-trafficking network investigated in the late 1980s and early 1990s.

In April 2025, US District Judge Beryl Howell ruled that the FBI and DEA could no longer rely on “Glomar” responses to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records concerning Tinubu, because the existence of the relevant investigation had already been officially acknowledged. The ruling did not order the wholesale release of all records.

The Presidency has stressed that the proceedings do not amount to a criminal case against Tinubu and that no finding of criminal wrongdoing has been made against him in the FOIA litigation.