(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records related to the Obama-era 2012 U.S. Secret Service prostitution scandal in Cartagena, Colombia (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (1:26-cv-01555)).

Judicial Watch sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the Secret Service failed to respond to a February 19, 2026, FOIA request for:

All emails and text messages sent between officials in the U.S. Secret Service and officials in the Office of the White House Counsel, including but not limited to White House Counsel Kathryn Ruemmler, relating to a controversy involving Secret Service officials and other U.S. government employees using the services of prostitutes during an Obama visit to Cartagena, Colombia in 2012.

A September 26, 2012, report from Homeland Security Office of Inspector General, prepared in response to queries from several senators, found:

[W]e identified 13 USSS [Secret Service] employees who had personal encounters with female Colombian nationals consistent with the misconduct reported in April 2012, around the time of advance activities for the President’s visit to Cartagena. These encounters took place at the Hotel Caribe, the Hilton Cartagena Hotel and at a private residence.

Our investigation determined that 12 of the 13 USSS employees met 13 female Colombian nationals at bars or clubs and returned with them to their rooms at the Hotel Caribe or the Hilton Cartagena Hotel.  

***

Through our interviews, we learned that following their encounters, 3 females left the rooms without asking for money, 5 females asked for money and were paid, and 4females asked for money but were not paid. In addition, one female, who asked to be paid but was not, brought a Colombian police officer to the door of the USSS employee’s room; the employee did not answer the door. As a result, she was paid by another USSS employee and left.

All told, the Secret Service investigated 12 people in connection with the Colombia incident. The final outcome was seven resignations, three employees receiving administrative punishment, one termination and one retirement.

At least 10 military personnel involved in Obama’s trip also reportedly invited prostitutes to their rooms. Multiple law enforcement and congressional sources alleged involvement by members of the White House advance team, as well.

“The Secret Service’s refusal to turn over records about communications with the Obama White House raises serious transparency concerns. Judicial Watch’s lawsuit aims to uncover exactly what Secret Service officials were telling the White House during one of the most embarrassing security scandals in modern presidential history,” stated Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

In April 2026, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to an August 31, 2025, incident in which a club member allegedly carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun past Secret Service screening checkpoints at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia while President Donald Trump was on site.

Also in April, Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit forced the release of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that show that would-be Trump assassin Thomas Crooks was reportedly involved in an altercation with a group of people and making “hateful comments” directed at President Trump at the Butler, PA, rally site before the July 13, 2024, assassination attempt.

 In February 2026, Judicial Watch’s lawsuit forced the release of the first FBI records about the Butler assassination attempt.

 In December 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Secret Service for communications records related to Code Pink protesters who disrupted a dinner held by President Trump at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2025 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-04408)).

 In September 2025, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice for messages among top leaders of the Federal Bureau of Investigation referencing social media posts of Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September 15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-02740)).

 In March 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Department of Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)). 

 In August 2024, Judicial Watch uncovered documents from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot. The preparation included sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.

 In August 2024, in response to a separate open records request, Judicial Watch obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.

 In August 2024, following up on reports that the Biden Secret Service denied Trump’s requests for additional Secret Service protection, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues Secret Service for Records on Obama-Era Cartagena Prostitution Scandal appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of a California political candidate and a state political party against the State of California due to its failure to maintain accurate voter rolls as required by the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA) (Don Wagner et al. v. Shirley N. Weber, in her official capacity as California Secretary of State (No. 8:26-cv-01263)).

Federal law requires most inactive voter registrations to be removed after two general federal elections. The new federal lawsuit alleges, based on admissions in prior Judicial Watch litigation, that 873,092 voter registrations have remained continuously inactive for at least three federal elections, and some for much longer. Of these registrations, 326,808 have remained continuously inactive through at least three consecutive federal general elections, while 151,202 have remained inactive through at least four consecutive federal general elections. 

In addition, 33,922 voter registrations have remained continuously inactive through at least five consecutive federal general elections — dating back at least ten years, to before the November 5, 2016, presidential election.

Under the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA), states are required to make reasonable efforts to remove ineligible voters from the voter rolls, including those who have died or moved. The lawsuit also alleges, again citing admissions by California officials, that the state takes no effective action to require counties to comply with the NVRA. As a result, they do not comply.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Don Wagner, an elected member of the Orange County Board of Supervisors and candidate for California Secretary of State, and the American Independent Party of California. 

In June 2025, the U.S. Election Assistance Commission (EAC), as required by law, issued a report to Congress on states’ NVRA compliance. Citing this report, Judicial Watch points out that 20 California counties removed 50 or fewer inactive voters from their rolls between November 2022 and November 2024. Ten of these counties reported zero removals of inactives under the relevant statute during that time period. These include Alpine, Imperial, Inyo, Kings, Mariposa, Mendocino, Plumas, San Bernardino, Tehama, and Trinity. Counties reporting 50 or fewer removals include Butte, Colusa, Contra Costa, Glenn, Lassen, Modoc, Santa Cruz, Siskiyou, Sonoma, and Tuolumne.

Judicial Watch argues:

The 20 counties reporting zero to 50 registrations pursuant to NVRA Section 8(d)(1)(B) during the period from November 2022 to November 2024 reported a combined total of 3,440,358 voter registrations to the EAC. Yet these 20 counties reported removing a grand total of just 218 registrations under that provision during that period.

For context, Judicial Watch points out that San Diego County, with 2.2 million registered voters, removed over 300,000 voter registrations under that statute during the same time period.

Currently, over 23 million Californians are registered to vote.

Additionally, Judicial Watch states that Census Bureau data shows:

• 660,000 California residents moved out of state in 2024;
• 690,000 in 2023; and
• 818,000 in 2022.

Judicial Watch points out that if California “was actually conducting a general program that makes a reasonable effort to cancel the registrations of voters who have become ineligible because of a change of residence, it would not be possible” for these counties to cancel so few registrations under the NVRA in a two-year period.”

The lawsuit also notes that “comparing the total number of voter registrations reported to the EAC in each California county to the U.S. Census Bureau’s most recent five-year estimates of voting-age citizenry indicates that 18 California counties have more voter registrations than citizens over the age of eighteen.”

In March 2019, the State of California and Los Angeles County settled a December 2017 lawsuit with Judicial Watch that resulted in the removal of more than 1.2 million names from voter rolls.

“Judicial Watch’s federal lawsuit confirms California has a dirty voting rolls crisis – with thousands of old names on the rolls going back at least 10 years,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Dirty voting rolls can mean dirty elections. And California and its counties must take immediate steps to clean the over 870,000 dirty names on the voting lists.”

Judicial Watch filed the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court Central District of California Western Division. The complaint asks the court to declare California in violation of Section 8(a)(4) of the NVRA and to permanently enjoin the state from further violations. It also seeks an order requiring California to implement a lawful voter-roll maintenance program to remove ineligible registrants.

Judicial Watch is assisted by the Benbrook Law Group of Sacramento, California.

Judicial Watch is a national leader in election integrity and voting rights litigation, with a record of successful lawsuits enforcing constitutional redistricting standards and cleaning voter rolls nationwide.

Judicial Watch’s lawsuits and legal actions have caused  the removal of six million ineligible names from voter lists nationwide.

Robert Popper, a Judicial Watch senior attorney, leads its election law program. Popper was previously in the Voting Section of the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department, where he managed voting rights investigations, litigations, consent decrees, and settlements in dozens of states.

In April 2026, Judicial Watch announced a settlement in its federal lawsuit against Oregon election officials, which confirms 800,000 ineligible voter names are slated for review and removal from voter registration lists.

Colorado recently removed 372,000 ineligible voter names thanks to a Judicial Watch lawsuit and settlement addressing the state’s compliance with federal voter list maintenance requirements.

In Kentucky, state election board officials reported that “roughly 735,000 ineligible voter registrations” have been removed from voter rolls, as part of a 2018 consent decree settling a Judicial Watch lawsuit.

As part of its 2022 settlement, New York City alone has removed 918,139 ineligible names from its rolls: data show 477,056 removals between March 2023 and February 2025, which is in addition to the 441,083 previously reported removals.

Judicial Watch legal pressure also resulted in election roll clean-ups in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Ohio.

A federal court in Illinois has ruled that Judicial Watch’s lawsuit to force the cleaning of voter rolls may proceed in that state. Judicial Watch has sent a notice-of-violation letter to election officials in California, and legal action over the state’s voter rolls is imminent.

In March 2026, the Supreme Court of the United States held oral argument in a landmark election integrity case over whether the federal Election Day laws prohibit the counting of mail-in ballots that arrive after Election Day. Judicial Watch brought the underlying lawsuit on behalf of the Libertarian Party of Mississippi.

In January 2026, in a historic case filed by Judicial Watch, the Supreme Cour decided 7-2 in favor of Congressman Mike Bost and two presidential electors who were before the court to vindicate their standing to challenge an Illinois law allowing the counting of ballots received up to 14 days after Election Day.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues California to Clean Up 873,000 Inactive Voter Registrations on Rolls appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it has filed a federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Justice and four other federal agencies, seeking records concerning anomalous health incidents (AHIs), commonly referred to as “Havana Syndrome” (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice, et al. (No. 1:26-cv-01702)).

Havana Syndrome is a mysterious set of cognitive and neurological ailments named after cases first reported among diplomats at the U.S. embassy in Cuba. Former Deputy National Security Adviser Charles Kupperman has said that he believes the number of people who have reported anomalous health incidents is near 1,000, if you include family members with symptoms. Kupperman also stated that such incidents were not confined to overseas locations, noting that two government staffers reportedly were affected just steps from the White House.

The lawsuit follows the government’s failure to respond to multiple FOIA requests submitted by Judicial Watch in February 2026 for extensive records dating back to 2016 regarding investigative, analytic, and operational response to Havana Syndrome affecting U.S. personnel both domestically and abroad. The agencies include:

• Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
• Central Intelligence Agency (CIA),
• Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA),
• Office of the Director of National Intelligence (ODNI), and
• U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE),

According to the complaint, the FBI request seeks “all records created, received, or maintained” by the Bureau’s Counterintelligence Division, Weapons of Mass Destruction Directorate, and field offices relating to Havana Syndrome investigations, including files indexed under classifications such as Espionage, Sabotage, Domestic Security, and Foreign Counterintelligence. The request also seeks FD-302 interview reports, electronic communications, case files, and interagency coordination records with intelligence and national security partners.

Judicial Watch’s FOIA requests further seek CIA records addressing technical and scientific analysis of potential causal mechanisms for Havana Syndrome, including directional energy, pulsed radiofrequency energy, and ultrasonic or infrasonic hypotheses, as well as intelligence assessments regarding possible foreign attribution, including Russia, China, and Cuba.

The lawsuit also seeks Defense Intelligence Agency records relating to its internal Havana Syndrome investigation reportedly led by retired Army Lt. Col. Greg Edgreen, as well as records concerning the dismissal of former DIA Director Lt. Gen. Jeffrey Kruse and related congressional findings.

In addition, Judicial Watch is seeking ODNI records related to Intelligence Community Assessment methodology, coordination processes, dissenting analytic views, and evidentiary standards used in Havana Syndrome-related assessments, including the March 2023 Intelligence Community Assessment and subsequent updates.

The complaint further includes a FOIA request submitted to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement seeking records regarding the alleged acquisition and testing of a directed-energy or pulsed-energy device reportedly obtained through Homeland Security Investigations and studied for potential relevance to Havana Syndrome symptoms.

“Federal agencies have stonewalled basic transparency on Havana Syndrome for years. The American people—and the dedicated public servants affected—deserve answers about what happened, what the government knew, and when it knew,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues FBI, CIA, DIA, ODNI, and ICE for Records on ‘Havana Syndrome’ Investigations appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that the Bethel Park, Pennsylvania, Police Department has, in response to a court order, released an audio recording of a 911 call placed by the father of Thomas Crooks, who is alleged to have attempted to assassinate then-presidential candidate Donald J. Trump at approximately 6:11 p.m. during a campaign rally in Butler, PA, on July 13, 2024.

Thomas Crooks’ father, Matthew Crooks, called 911 on the evening of the shooting, just before 11:00 p.m., because he was concerned his son was missing and had not returned home:

Hi, hi, yes, my name’s Matthew Crooks. I was calling in regards to my son Thomas. He, he belongs to the Claritin Sportsmen Club in Claritin…. The reason I’m calling is he left the house here at about a quarter till 2:00 this afternoon. And we’ve gotten no contact from him, no text messages, nothing’s been returned, and he’s not home yet…. Like I said, he belongs to the Claritin Sportsmen Club or Gun Club, and he took a rifle of his out there, and it’s, it’s routine. He always does it, but he’s usually back within 2 hours…. And we’ve been texting him, leaving him messages on his phone. He’s not been returning any of our texts or messages, which is totally not like him. And, you know, we’re, we’re going on 11:00, and he still hasn’t come back or contacted us, so we’re kind of worried. We don’t know if he’s been in an accident or if something else happened to him.

The release follows a Pennsylvania Right-to-Know Law request filed by Ken Silva of Headline USA in July 2024 seeking access to the recording and related records. The Bethel Park Police Department denied the request. On appeal, the Pennsylvania Office of Open Records (OOR) affirmed the denial, asserting that the audio was exempt from disclosure, citing its alleged connection to an active criminal investigation involving the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Pennsylvania State Police.

In October 2024, Judicial Watch, through local counsel, filed a petition for review of the denial in the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court on behalf of its client, Ken Silva, and Headline USA, (Silva et al. v. Bethel Park Police (No. SA-24-000675)).

In June 2025 Judicial Watch, again through local counsel, filed a motion for in camera (private) review of the disputed audio recording. The court granted that request, reviewed the material privately, and ultimately ordered its release on April 24, 2026, subject to redactions of personal identifying information.

“This audio 911 call is another piece of the puzzle in the Butler assassination attempt on President Trump,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

J. Chadwick Schnee, Esquire, of Schnee Legal Services, LLC, is assisting Judicial Watch as local counsel.

In February 2026, a separate Judicial Watch lawsuit forced the release of the first FBI records about the Butler assassination attempt, revealing that law enforcement personnel broadcast radio warnings about an “unknown male acting suspiciously” prior to the shooting.

In April 2026, Judicial Watch sued U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) for records related to an August 31, 2025, incident in which a club member allegedly carried a loaded semi-automatic handgun past Secret Service screening checkpoints at Trump National Golf Club in Virginia while President Donald Trump was on site.

In April 2026, Judicial Watch’s FOIA lawsuit forced the release of records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that show that Crooks was reportedly involved in an altercation with a group of people and making “hateful comments” directed at President Trump at the Butler, PA.

In December 2025, Judicial Watch sued the U.S. Secret Service for communications records related to Code Pink protesters who disrupted a dinner held by President Trump at a restaurant in Washington, DC, on September 9, 2025 (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-04408)).

In September 2025, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit for messages among top leaders of the FBI referencing social media posts of Special Agent Jeffrey Veltri, head of the Miami Field Office, which is investigating the September 15 assassination attempt against Donald Trump (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Justice (No. 1:24-cv-02740)).

In March 2025, Judicial Watch sued the Homeland Security for records related to security provided for the July 13, 2024, rally in Butler, PA (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:25-cv-00704)).

In August 2024, Judicial Watch uncovered documents from the district attorney’s office in Butler County, PA, detailing the extensive preparation of local police for the rally at which former President Trump was shot. The preparation included sniper teams, counter assault teams and a quick response force.

In August 2024, in response to a separate open records request, Judicial Watch obtained bodycam footage of the July 13 assassination events from the Butler Township Police Department.

In August 2024, following up on reports that the Biden Secret Service denied Trump’s requests for additional Secret Service protection, Judicial Watch filed a FOIA lawsuit for Secret Service and other records regarding potential increased protective services to Trump’s security detail prior to the attempt on his life at his July 13 campaign rally (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (No. 1:24-cv-02495)).

###

The post Judicial Watch Obtains Court-Ordered Release of 911 Call from Father of Alleged Trump Shooter Thomas Crooks appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Federal authorities are finally investigating a soft-on-crime county prosecutor—backed by leftwing billionaire George Soros—for offering violent illegal immigrant criminals preferential treatment to help them avoid deportation. His name is Steve Descano, the Democratic prosecutor of Fairfax County, Virginia’s largest, and one of dozens of “social justice” district attorneys that received tens of millions of dollars in the past decade from Soros, who has bankrolled and helped place like-minded progressives in the nation’s biggest jurisdictions. Not surprisingly, crime has exploded in many of those municipalities because rogue, Soros-funded attorneys supposedly elected to uphold public safety and oversee the prosecution of crimes instead have agendas—mainly racial justice—that are fueling a massive crime wave, according to a senate report. “Soros prosecutors have overseen massive crime waves in their communities,” the report confirms, adding that the lawyers with campaigns sponsored by Soros have failed their constituents.

Thanks to the Hungarian philanthropist’s enormous financial support and his well-funded progressive infrastructure groups the district attorneys oversee prosecutions in half of the nation’s 50 most populous municipalities, according to an in-depth analysis conducted by the Law Enforcement Legal Defense Fund (LELDF), a Virginia nonprofit dedicated to supporting and defending the law enforcement profession. This spans from Seattle, Washington to Orlando Florida, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to Los Angeles, California. Soros, who has also invested huge sums to advance a radical globalist agenda in every corner of the world under the cloak of supporting democratically elected governments, strengthening the rule of law, and promoting fairness in political, legal, and economic systems has also helped place handpicked leftist prosecutors in dozens of states ranging from wealthy suburbs surrounding the nation’s capital to rural farming communities in the Midwest.

Among the rogue prosecutors is Fairfax County’s Descano, who received over $625,000 in campaign funding from Soros’ Justice and Public Safety Political Action Committee (PAC) and was first elected in 2019 then reelected four years later. As soon as he won Descano released a list of crimes his office would no longer prosecute, including cases involving assault and battery, prostitution, shoplifting, resisting arrest, reckless driving, possession of certain drugs and a multitude of other offenses. His outrageous policies have been detrimental, with homicides jumping 40% in his first year as Fairfax County attorney, forcible sex offenses rising nearly 26% and kidnappings increasing 8.5%. Descano also protects illegal immigrant criminals with sanctuary policies that compromise public safety. This includes a recent tragedy in which an illegal immigrant from Sierra Leone with a lengthy criminal record stabbed a woman to death at a bus stop. The illegal alien, Abdul Jalloh, was granted unsupervised release following a probation violation instead of being arrested despite a criminal history that includes more than 30 arrests for charges of rape, malicious wounding, assault, drug possession, identity theft, trespassing, and larceny.

This month the Department of Justice (DOJ) announced that Descano’s destructive sanctuary policies are under investigation. The agency has launched an official probe into his plea bargaining, charging decisions and sentencing policies, which reportedly discriminate against U.S. citizens by offering preferential treatment only to illegal alien criminal defendants. “This investigation will uncover whether this prosecutor is putting the community at risk in offering sweetheart deals to illegal immigrants charged with serious crimes,” said Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, who heads the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division. In a notice to Descano last week Assistant AG Dhillon writes that the agency’s investigation will determine whether the Office of the Fairfax Commonwealth’s Attorney (OFCA) that he heads has violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Safe Streets Act, both of which prohibit recipients of federal financial assistance from discriminating based upon race, color, or national origin. “Our investigation is based on information that on or about December 15, 2020, OFCA adopted the Commonwealth’s Attorney Plea Bargaining, Charging Decisions, and Sentencing Policy,” the notice reads. “That policy states in relevant part “ACAs [ Assistant Commonwealth’s Attorneys] shall consider immigration consequences where possible” and that “prosecutors shall consider … the collateral immigration consequences of the specific crime(s) the defendant is charged with[.]”

The post Soros-Funded Prosecutor Offers Illegal Immigrants Charged with Serious Crimes Sweetheart Deals appeared first on Judicial Watch.

Judicial Watch Asks Court to Unseal Royalty Payments to NIH Employees
Judicial Watch Sues EPA Over Biden’s $2 Billion Grant to Stacey Abrams
Judicial Watch Sues for FDA Commissioner’s Communications on Abortion Drug
Judicial Watch Africa Aid Agency Whistleblower Faces Retaliation Lawsuit
Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Among Biden’s Anti-Christian Policies

Judicial Watch Asks Court to Unseal Royalty Payments to NIH Employees

As they say, follow the money. That’s what we’re doing with government employees making decisions about your health. We want to see how much private companies pay federal health bureaucrats, but they’re fighting back.

We filed a post-hearing brief in a lawsuit on behalf of Open the Books urging a federal court to compel the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to release unredacted records showing royalty-related payments to government scientists, including former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci.

Our October 2021Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeks full disclosure of NIH “Inventor Award” payments—compensation issued to federal employees for taxpayer-funded inventions licensed to private companies.

We argue that the NIH has improperly withheld these records based on speculative claims that disclosure could allow outsiders to “back-calculate” confidential royalty payments made by private industry to the government.

In a March evidentiary hearing before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, NIH witnesses attempted to justify redactions by arguing that releasing inventor payment amounts could reveal private-sector royalty rates.

We contend that the government’s argument is based on unrealistic hypotheticals rather than actual data:

The evidentiary hearing was Defendant’s opportunity to prove that Inventor Awards could be used to back calculate royalty amounts. Of the 59,000 instances in which NIH redacted Inventor Awards … it did not back calculate a royalty payment from a single award. Instead, it offered on direct examination what appeared to be actual examples from 1985.… It became clear on cross examination, however, that the examples were not real instances of Inventor Awards and a royalty amount … but only hypotheticals. Dr. Kirby testified on cross examination that she “made up” the numbers … She also testified that the numbers were “all arbitrary numbers that [she] selected.” … Because it was only a hypothetical based on arbitrary numbers, Dr. Kirby did not have a real-life royalty amount against which to check her work.

In our brief, we argue that there are too many unknowns and moving parts for anyone to reliably “work backwards” to those private payments. The system is too complicated to figure out how much private companies paid the government just by looking at what scientists were later paid – or to guess:

[National Institutes of Health] witnesses failed to establish that back calculation is possible for any of the withheld Inventor Awards. Cross examination made clear that the agency’s witnesses offered only grossly simplified hypotheticals, not actual royalty amounts back calculated from actual Inventor Awards paid to real NIH employees and withheld from Plaintiff. These hypotheticals were devoid of the many variables—known only to NIH and perhaps the relevant licensee …

We are asking the court to order the release of the responsive, unredacted NIH “Inventor Award” records, arguing they are being unlawfully withheld.

Taxpayers have a right to see how money from taxpayer-funded inventions is distributed. Judicial Watch and Open the Books already forced disclosure of more than $1 billion in NIH royalty payments marked to inventors, like Fauci. It is head-scratching that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would allow this stubborn and unlawful secrecy to continue about payments to Fauci and others.

“Americans have a dual interest in the disclosure of these payments,” said Open the Books CEO John Hart.  “Every taxpayer deserves to understand how private payments may impact decision making among public scientists and agency directors. Equally important, they are patients making some of life’s most personal decisions when it comes to health care. They are entitled to understand all the financial stakes in play as they receive guidance from public health officials.”

In earlier rulings in the case, Mehta rejected the NIH’s effort to broadly shield the royalty program using employee privacy claims, writing that “federal government employees have a limited privacy interest in information concerning their compensation.”

The court also emphasized the strong public interest in disclosure, noting that transparency regarding royalty payments could help the public assess whether inventors’ financial interests in licensed technologies “could potentially bias the design, conduct, or reporting of clinical research.” Mehta further concluded that the public interest in understanding these financial arrangements is significant, particularly where government scientists involved in taxpayer-funded biomedical research may receive payments tied to the commercialization of those technologies.

Over $2.685 billion was paid to NIH institutes or scientists – of which more than $1 billion was marked for inventors – between 2010-2023 from pharmaceutical companies and other private entities licensing government-owned patents. Those payments were obtained only after Judicial Watch and Open the Books forced the NIH to release previously hidden royalty payment records through FOIA litigation.

The disclosures include royalty payments connected to inventions developed across multiple NIH institutes, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which was led for decades by Fauci and played a central role in federally funded biomedical research.

In February, we filed a separate FOIA lawsuit on behalf of Open the Books seeking records concerning whether statutory limits on royalty payments to federal employees are being effectively bypassed (American Transparency v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:26-cv-00432)).

That lawsuit seeks records including:

• Emails referencing royalty payments that may exceed the statutory cap
• Records concerning royalty payments placed in reserve when payments exceed statutory limits
• Internal guidance and procedures governing the NIH Public Health Service Technology Transfer Policy Manual

The records requested cover the period January 2020 through December 2025.

Federal law limits the amount individual government employee-inventors may receive in royalty payments to $150,000 per year. NIH scientists may receive royalty payments when inventions developed with taxpayer funding are licensed to private companies. These payments originate from license fees paid by pharmaceutical companies and other entities seeking to commercialize government-developed biomedical technologies.

OpenTheBooks.com, operated by American Transparency, maintains one of the largest independent databases of public-sector spending in the United States, promoting transparency by putting government spending records online for public review.

Judicial Watch Sues EPA Over Biden’s $2 Billion Grant to Stacey Abrams

As the Biden administration was collapsing in 2024, it lawlessly rushed out billions in cash to left-wing interest groups in a way that encouraged fraud and abuse. We’re suing to help expose this.

We filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for records of the Biden administration’s $2 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant to the nonprofit Power Forward Communities, which is tied to failed Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 1:26-cv-01638)).

The taxpayer funds, awarded in April 2024, were from the $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund program established under the Biden administration’s massive Inflation Reduction Act. The grant was awarded to finance so-called “residential decarbonization.”

Power Forward Communities, which was established in 2023, is a coalition of nonprofits which includes partners like Rewiring America, Enterprise Community Partners, and Habitat for Humanity. Abrams reportedly “played a pivotal role” in establishing the group, which in its first few months of operation reported just $100 in revenue.

In early 2025, following the start of the second Trump administration, the EPA under Administrator Lee Zeldin ordered grants made via the National Clean Investment Fund be frozen due to an ongoing investigation into what the agency under Zeldin said were “serious concerns” that were raised “regarding self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients, and reduced government oversight.”

In February 2025, the Trump administration’s EPA announced it would take steps to get the money back. Zeldin cited comments from a former Biden EPA political appointee, who described disbursements made through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as akin to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic,” because Biden officials were allegedly trying to get money out the door before Trump took over.

In March 2025, the grant payments were halted, while Citibank, the banking entity used to help move or transfer the grants, froze the payments after recommendation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Power Forward Communities was one of several nonprofits that filed a lawsuit against the EPA and Citibank to prevent the termination of the grants and have restored access to the funds. In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkanissued a temporary restraining order blocking the EPA from canceling the grants. The judge also blocked Citibank, which holds the money on behalf of EPA, from transferring it to the government or anyone else.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September 2025, found that the District Court had abused its discretion in issuing the injunction while ruling jurisdiction for such claims lay with the Court of Federal Claims and not the district court. The appeals court rescinded Judge Chutkan’s injunction and the funds remain frozen as the case is ongoing.

We sued after the EPA failed to respond to a February 20, 2025, FOIA request for all documents and communications regarding the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant to Power Forward Communities.

The Trump EPA team should disclose and expose every single document about this massive Biden corruption scandal.

Judicial Watch Sues for FDA Commissioner’s Communications on Abortion Drug

Judicial Watch filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records of communications and meetings of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner involving the abortion drug Mifepristone (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1:26-cv-01546)).

We sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the FDA failed to respond to a February 25, 2026 FOIA request for:

1. All communications sent to, received by, or copied to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, or to the Commissioner’s immediate office, that concern, refer to, or discuss mifepristone, RU-486, or any generic or branded form of mifepristone approved, regulated, or reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration.
2. All documents related to any meeting with the Commissioner of Food Drugs where mifepristone, RU-486,or any generic or branded form of mifepristone approved, regulated, or reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration was discussed, including, but not limited to calendar events, calendar invitations, talking points, PowerPoint presentations, written or audio recordings, and post-meeting summaries

The request asked that records be provided for the period April 1, 2025, to the present.

In response to pressure from pro-abortion activists, the Clinton Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of the abortion pill in September 2000. Similarly, the Obama and Biden administrations took steps to make the controversial abortion pill more widely available in a way that undermined its “safe” use.

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary resigned earlier this month amid friction with the administration.

Pro-life advocates had called for his ouster. Makary reportedly slow-walked a safety review of the pill, which can be mailed to states that have limited abortion. Makary’s successor will inherit that review and the tricky politics associated with abortion.

For decades, Judicial Watch has investigated and exposed the dangers of the abortion pill pushed on pregnant mothers by the Clinton/Obama/Biden operations. The new FDA leadership needs to get its act together quickly, stop providing special treatment for the abortion pill, and ensure transparency to preserve the rule of law and the public health.

We have been instrumental in bringing the controversies surrounding the abortion drug to the public’s attention.

In October 2024, wet filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of Advancing American Freedom Foundation against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for FDA records concerning approval of the abortion drug Mifeprex (Mifepristone, formerly known as RU-486) and meetings between senior FDA officials, White House counsel, and foreign actors.

In March 2024, Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in which it argued “the FDA violated its own unambiguous regulation and relied on pretext…. The FDA’s actions in 2016 and 2021 were arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).” And, in 2021, using the Covid-19 pandemic as a tool, abortion proponents “sued the FDA to dispense with the REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategy] in-person medical visits as a prerequisite for obtaining Mifeprex and permit the drug to be mailed.”

Through a FOIA lawsuit Judicial Watch filed in 2023 uncovered at least six Mifeprex-related deaths between 2000 to 2002 that were detailed in Health and Human Services records.

Records produced to us in September 2023 included an “Annual Report for Mifepristone,” covering the period September 28, 2000, to September 27, 2001, produced by the Population Council/Danco Laboratories, LLC. The summary indicated that during the testing period 32 “adverse events were reported to Danco and reported by Danco to FDA in periodic reports.” (The existence of adverse event reports does not necessarily establish causation.)

Of the 32 reported adverse events, two were 15-day reports (the others were not serious and/or not unexpected). One of the 15-day reports was reported as “hemorrhage due to a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and death.” [Emphasis added] The other was reported as “post-abortal parametritis/endometritis, adult respiratory distress syndrome and bilateral pneumonia.” This latter 15-day report and one case where fever was reported represent the total reports on the marketed drug suggesting infection. In addition, one infection was reported in the Population Council’s 200 mifepristone study and one death [Emphasis added] due to clostridium sordelli infection was reported in the Canadian study.

Judicial Watch Africa Aid Agency Whistleblower Faces Retaliation Lawsuit

Rooting out government corruption often requires brave federal employees to take a stand when they discover it. It’s not easy for them, as the experience of one of our whistleblowers illustrates.

The U.S. Department of Justice confirmed in a federal court hearing that its investigation of senior officials at the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) continues.

But one of our whistleblower clients faces a retaliatory lawsuit brought by the agency’s former president.

Our whistleblower clients have spent years courageously reporting corruption and misconduct at USADF, sharing information with the USAID Office of Inspector General (OIG), members of Congress, and the Department of Justice. That information has since been borne out by federal criminal charges and damning reports from the Office of Inspector General for U.S. Agency for International Development and the Government Accountability Office.

We have been advancing its whistleblower clients’ work through multiple vehicles, including a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit seeking USADF records related to those allegations. (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. African Development Foundation (No. 1:25-cv-02623)).

In an earlier hearing in that case, the DOJ stated publicly for the first time that it and the USAID OIG were investigating possible crimes committed by senior USADF officials. Shortly thereafter, the Justice Department charged Mathieu Zahui, the USADF’s chief financial officer, based in significant part on information from our whistleblower clients.

Zahui subsequently pleaded guilty to accepting illegal gratuities and making false statements to federal investigators.

During a status conference on March 30, 2026 before Judge Reggie B. Walton of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, the Justice Department confirmed that its investigation of USADF has not ended.

Our whistleblower clients continue to work with members of Congress to demand accountability. Senator Mike Lee recently led a coalition of senators urging the Department of Justice to expand its investigation and pursue additional prosecutions arising from USADF’s corruption.

Congresswoman Anna Paulina Luna has also taken up the cause, writing to Attorney General Todd Blanche to request a broader review of fraud, corruption, and whistleblower retaliation involving senior USADF leadership. Congresswoman Luna specifically highlighted the firsthand account of our client, Jasmine Battle, noting that after Ms. Battle raised concerns about misconduct, she was terminated — and now faces civil litigation by former USADF President Travis Adkins in an effort to silence her.

That litigation is itself a form of retaliation. As we stated in its motion to dismiss filed on Battle’s behalf:

Travis Adkins presided over one of the most corrupt federal agencies in recent memory. During his tenure as president of the United States African Development Foundation, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee named him personally as potentially ‘complicit in, corrupt and potentially unlawful practices’ and placed a congressional hold on the agency’s funding. His own chief financial officer pleaded guilty to public corruption for acts that ran through every year of [Adkins’] leadership.

Jasmine Battle, a seasoned and well-respected administrative professional, whose career included working with former cabinet-level officials, witnessed this dysfunction firsthand, served as [Adkins’] assistant for seven months in 2022. What she saw troubled her, and she did what conscientious public servants are supposed to do. She reported it to Plaintiff, to the EEOC, and to oversight bodies like Congress. [Adkins], now under a microscope for what occurred during his tenure as president, is seeking to silence her. And now Battle finds herself in a seemingly partisan crossfire because she had the courage to be a whistleblower.”

Jasmine Battle did exactly what a public servant should do — she reported corruption and refused to stay silent. Judicial Watch is proud to stand with her and our other whistleblower clients as we continue to pursue full accountability at the US African Development Foundation.

Transgender Day of Visibility on Easter Among Biden’s Anti-Christian Policies

This summer the celebration of America’s 250th birthday will recognize the importance of religious freedom. Joe Biden would not have done this, as our Corruption Chronicles blog illustrates.

A governmentwide anti-Christian effort launched under the Biden administration was much worse than previously imagined, and a new report published by a Department of Justice (DOJ) task force documents the alarming details of woke measures adopted by most federal agencies to conduct the mission that clearly targeted conservatives. This includes the Biden DOJ mandating the adoption of gender ideology throughout the federal government, illegally weaponizing a landmark civil rights law prohibiting sex-based discrimination to allow men into women’s sports and intimate facilities, punishing faith-based homeless service providers who raised concerns about biological men entering women-only shelters and allowing federally-funded schools to facilitate “gender transitions” without disclosing education records to parents. In 2024 the Biden administration delivered a sucker punch on Good Friday, a solemn and sacred day for Christians, by announcing that Easter Sunday, a Christian holiday celebrating the resurrection of Jesus Christ, would be officially recognized by the government as Transgender Day of Visibility.

The flagrant examples go on and on with an extensive list of anti-Christian measures that even President Trump probably could not imagine when he signed an executive order in early 2025 to right the wrong. The order created a special Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias within the DOJ to protect the religious freedoms of Americans by ending the anti-Christian weaponization of the government. “The Founders established a Nation in which people were free to practice their faith without fear of discrimination or retaliation by their government,” Trump’s order states, adding that the previous administration engaged in an egregious pattern of targeting peaceful Christians while ignoring violent, anti-Christian offenses. The task force uncovered the Biden administration’s radical policy agenda and documented cases in detail in the recently issued 200-page report, which includes over 300 pages of exhibits and evidence illustrating how individual federal agencies discriminated against Christians. Besides the DOJ, they include key agencies such as the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development (HUD), Health, and Human Services (HHS) as well as Homeland Security.

Examples of the “systemic culture” of anti-Christian bias include the FBI collaborating with the leftwing extremist group Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) to investigate, track and scrutinize Catholics who were wrongly labelled “potential violent extremists or domestic terrorists” based on their views on abortion, immigration, human sexuality and their preferred popes. A 2023 FBI memorandum included in the report asserts that “radical-traditionalist” Catholics are domestic-terrorism threats and suggests infiltrating Catholic churches as “threat mitigation.” The DOJ criminally charged numerous peaceful pro-life Christians for praying and demonstrating outside abortion facilities. Among those charged and slapped with multi-year prison sentences was a Catholic priest, an 87-year-old woman, a 75-year-old grandmother and a father of 11 arrested after praying and singing hymns outside an abortion facility in Tennessee as part of a politically motivated persecution campaign by the Biden administration.

HHS, which is responsible for enhancing the health and well-being of all Americans, took multiple steps to discriminate against Christian families over their religious beliefs because Biden officials viewed their values as harmful to children with gender dysphoria or same-sex attraction. The agency prevented foster children from being placed with Christian families or Christian foster agencies that did not affirm the Biden administration’s policies on sexual orientation and gender ideology. The Department of Education issued excessive fines against Christian universities, pushed policies in which men were allowed into girls’ locker rooms and promoted ideological materials about gender identity to young children that fundamentally conflict with Christian tenets. The agency also allowed federally funded schools to facilitate gender transitions without disclosing education records to their parents. HUD made participation in its housing programs conditioned on compliance with the administration’s woke gender identity nondiscrimination requirements even if they conflicted with a provider’s religious beliefs.

Federally managed museums on the National Mall forced pro-life students participating in a peaceful demonstration to remove religious and pro-life attire or leave the premises and the National Park Service twice denied a Catholic organization access to a national cemetery where it planned to hold a quiet Memorial Day mass to honor fallen soldiers. “As our report lays out, the Biden Administration’s actions devastated the lives of many Christian Americans,” acting Attorney General Todd Blanche, Chair of the Task Force to Eradicate Anti-Christian Bias, said in a statement. “The Department of Justice will continue to expose bad actors who targeted Christians and work tirelessly to restore religious liberty for all Americans of faith.” Blanche confirms that no American should live in fear of being punished by their government for their faith.

Until next week,

The post Judicial Watch Asks Court to Unseal NIH Royalty Payments appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for records on the Biden administration’s $2 billion Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant to the nonprofit Power Forward Communities which is tied to failed Georgia Democratic gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (No. 1:26-cv-01638)).

The taxpayer funds, awarded in April 2024, were from the $14 billion National Clean Investment Fund program established under the Biden administration’s massive Inflation Reduction Act. The grant was awarded to finance so-called “residential decarbonization.”

Power Forward Communities, which was established in 2023, is a coalition of nonprofits which includes partners like Rewiring America, Enterprise Community Partners, and Habitat for Humanity. Abrams reportedly “played a pivotal role” in establishing the group, which in its first few months of operation reported just $100 in revenue.

In early 2025, following the start of the second Trump administration, the EPA under Administrator Lee Zeldin ordered grants made via the National Clean Investment Fund be frozen due to an ongoing investigation into what the agency under Zeldin said were “serious concerns” that were raised “regarding self-dealing and conflicts of interest, unqualified recipients, and reduced government oversight.”

In February 2025, the Trump administration’s EPA announced it would take steps to get the money back. Zeldin cited comments from a former Biden EPA political appointee, who described disbursements made through the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund as akin to “tossing gold bars off the Titanic,” because Biden officials were allegedly trying to get money out the door before Trump took over.

In March 2025, the grant payments were halted, while Citibank, the banking entity used to help move or transfer the grants, froze the payments after recommendation from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).

Power Forward Communities was one of several nonprofits that filed a lawsuit against the EPA and Citibank to prevent the termination of the grants and have restored access to the funds. In March 2025, U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan issued a temporary restraining order blocking the EPA from canceling the grants. The judge also blocked Citibank, which holds the money on behalf of EPA, from transferring it to the government or anyone else.

On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in September 2025, found that the District Court had abused its discretion in issuing the injunction while ruling jurisdiction for such claims lay with the Court of Federal Claims and not the district court. The appeals court rescinded Judge Chutkan’s injunction and the funds remain frozen as the case is ongoing.

Judicial Watch sued after the EPA failed to respond to a February 20, 2025, FOIA request for all documents and communications regarding the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grant to Power Forward Communities.

“As the Biden administration was collapsing in 2024, it lawlessly rushed out billions in cash to left-wing interest groups in a way that encouraged fraud and abuse. The Trump EPA team should disclose and expose every single document about this massive Biden corruption scandal,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues EPA for Records on Biden’s $2 Billion Election Year Grant to Stacey Abrams appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit for records of communications and meetings of the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) commissioner involving the abortion drug Mifepristone (Judicial Watch Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (1:26-cv-01546)).

Judicial Watch sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia after the FDA failed to respond to a February 25, 2026 FOIA request for:

1. All communications sent to, received by, or copied to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs, or to the Commissioner’s immediate office, that concern, refer to, or discuss mifepristone, RU-486, or any generic or branded form of mifepristone approved, regulated, or reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration.

2. All documents related to any meeting with the Commissioner of Food Drugs where mifepristone, RU-486,or any generic or branded form of mifepristone approved, regulated, or reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration was discussed, including, but not limited to calendar events, calendar invitations, talking points, PowerPoint presentations, written or audio recordings, and post-meeting summaries

The request asked that records be provided for the period April 1, 2025, to the present.

In response to pressure from pro-abortion activists, the Clinton Food and Drug Administration accelerated approval of the abortion pill in September 2000. Similarly, the Obama and Biden administrations took steps to make the controversial abortion pill more widely available in a way that undermined its “safe” use.

FDA Commissioner Marty Makary resigned earlier this month amid friction with the administration.

Pro-life advocates had called for his ouster. Makary reportedly slow-walked a safety review of the pill, which can be mailed to states that have limited abortion. Makary’s successor will inherit that review and the tricky politics associated with abortion.

“For decades, Judicial Watch has investigated and exposed the dangers of the abortion pill pushed on pregnant mothers by the Clinton/Obama/Biden operations,,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said. “The new FDA leadership needs to get its act together quickly, stop providing special treatment for the abortion pill, and ensure transparency to preserve the rule of law and the public health.”

Judicial Watch has been instrumental in bringing the controversies surrounding the abortion drug to the public’s attention.

In March 2024 Judicial Watch filed an amicus curiae (friend of the court) brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in which it argued “the FDA violated its own unambiguous regulation and relied on pretext…. The FDA’s actions in 2016 and 2021 were arbitrary and capricious and violated the Administrative Procedures Act (“APA”).” And, in 2021, using the Covid-19 pandemic as a tool, abortion proponents “sued the FDA to dispense with the REMS [risk evaluation and mitigation strategy] in-person medical visits as a prerequisite for obtaining Mifeprex and permit the drug to be mailed.”

Through a FOIA lawsuit Judicial Watch in 2023 uncovered at least six Mifeprex-related deaths between 2000 to 2002 that were detailed in Health and Human Services records.

Records produced to Judicial Watch in September 2023 included an “Annual Report for Mifepristone,” covering the period September 28, 2000, to September 27, 2001, produced by the Population Council/Danco Laboratories, LLC. The summary indicated that during the testing period 32 “adverse events were reported to Danco and reported by Danco to FDA in periodic reports.” (The existence of adverse event reports does not necessarily establish causation.) 

Of the 32 reported adverse events, two were 15-day reports (the others were not serious and/or not unexpected). One of the 15-day reports was reported as “hemorrhage due to a ruptured ectopic pregnancy and death.” [Emphasis added] The other was reported as “post-abortal parametritis/endometritis, adult respiratory distress syndrome and bilateral pneumonia.” This latter 15-day report and one case where fever was reported represent the total reports on the marketed drug suggesting infection. In addition, one infection was reported in the Population Council’s 200 mifepristone study and one death [Emphasis added] due to clostridium sordelli infection was reported in the Canadian study.

###

The post Judicial Watch Sues FDA for Commissioner’s Communications Involving the Abortion Drug Mifepristone appeared first on Judicial Watch.

(Washington, DC) – Judicial Watch announced that it filed an post-hearing brief in a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit on behalf of Open the Books, urging a federal court to compel the National Institutes of Health (NIH) to release unredacted records showing royalty-related payments to government scientists, including former National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Director Dr. Anthony Fauci.

The October 2021 lawsuit seeks full disclosure of NIH “Inventor Award” payments—compensation issued to federal employees for taxpayer-funded inventions licensed to private companies.

Judicial Watch argues the NIH has improperly withheld these records based on speculative claims that disclosure could allow outsiders to “back-calculate” confidential royalty payments made by private industry to the government.

In a March evidentiary hearing before US District Court Judge Amit Mehta, NIH witnesses attempted to justify redactions by arguing that releasing inventor payment amounts could reveal private-sector royalty rates.

Judicial Watch contends the government’s argument is based on unrealistic hypotheticals rather than actual data:

The evidentiary hearing was Defendant’s opportunity to prove that Inventor Awards could be used to back calculate royalty amounts. Of the 59,000 instances in which NIH redacted Inventor Awards … it did not back calculate a royalty payment from a single award. Instead, it offered on direct examination what appeared to be actual examples from 1985.… It became clear on cross examination, however, that the examples were not real instances of Inventor Awards and a royalty amount … but only hypotheticals. Dr. Kirby testified on cross examination that she “made up” the numbers … She also testified that the numbers were “all arbitrary numbers that [she] selected.” … Because it was only a hypothetical based on arbitrary numbers, Dr. Kirby did not have a real-life royalty amount against which to check her work.

In its brief, Judicial Watch argues that there are too many unknowns and moving parts for anyone to reliably “work backwards” to those private payments. The system is too complicated to figure out how much private companies paid the government just by looking at what scientists were later paid – or to guess:

[National Institutes of Health] witnesses failed to establish that back calculation is possible for any of the withheld Inventor Awards. Cross examination made clear that the agency’s witnesses offered only grossly simplified hypotheticals, not actual royalty amounts back calculated from actual Inventor Awards paid to real NIH employees and withheld from Plaintiff. These hypotheticals were devoid of the many variables—known only to NIH and perhaps the relevant licensee …

Judicial Watch is asking the court to order the release of the responsive, unredacted NIH “Inventor Award” records, arguing they are being unlawfully withheld.

“Taxpayers have a right to see how money from taxpayer-funded inventions is distributed,” said Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton. “Judicial Watch and Open the Books already forced disclosure of more than $1 billion of dollars in NIH royalty payments marked to inventors, like Fauci. It is head-scratching that HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. would allow this stubborn and unlawful secrecy to continue about payments to Fauci and others.”

“Americans have a dual interest in the disclosure of these payments,” said Open the Books CEO John Hart.  “Every taxpayer deserves to understand how private payments may impact decision making among public scientists and agency directors. Equally important, they are patients making some of life’s most personal decisions when it comes to health care. They are entitled to understand all the financial stakes in play as they receive guidance from public health officials.”

In earlier rulings in the case, Mehta rejected the NIH’s effort to broadly shield the royalty program using employee privacy claims, writing that “federal government employees have a limited privacy interest in information concerning their compensation.”

The court also emphasized the strong public interest in disclosure, noting that transparency regarding royalty payments could help the public assess whether inventors’ financial interests in licensed technologies “could potentially bias the design, conduct, or reporting of clinical research.” Mehta further concluded that the public interest in understanding these financial arrangements is significant, particularly where government scientists involved in taxpayer-funded biomedical research may receive payments tied to the commercialization of those technologies.

Over $2.685 billion was paid to NIH institutes or scientists – of which more than $1 billion was marked for inventors – between 2010-2023 from pharmaceutical companies and other private entities licensing government-owned patents. Those payments were obtained only after Judicial Watch and Open the Books forced the NIH to release previously hidden royalty payment records through FOIA litigation.

The disclosures include royalty payments connected to inventions developed across multiple NIH institutes, including the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), which was led for decades by Fauci and played a central role in federally funded biomedical research.

In February, Judicial Watch filed a separate FOIA lawsuit on behalf of Open the Books seeking records concerning whether statutory limits on royalty payments to federal employees are being effectively bypassed (American Transparency v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (No. 1:26-cv-00432)).

That lawsuit seeks records including:

• Emails referencing royalty payments that may exceed the statutory cap
• Records concerning royalty payments placed in reserve when payments exceed statutory limits
• Internal guidance and procedures governing the NIH Public Health Service Technology Transfer Policy Manual

The records requested cover the period January 2020 through December 2025.

Federal law limits the amount individual government employee-inventors may receive in royalty payments to $150,000 per year. NIH scientists may receive royalty payments when inventions developed with taxpayer funding are licensed to private companies. These payments originate from license fees paid by pharmaceutical companies and other entities seeking to commercialize government-developed biomedical technologies.

OpenTheBooks.com, operated by American Transparency, maintains one of the largest independent databases of public-sector spending in the United States, promoting transparency by putting government spending records online for public review.

###

The post Judicial Watch Requests Court Order to Unseal NIH Royalty Payment Records for Government Scientists, Including Dr. Anthony Fauci—Seeks Details on 59,000 Compensation Payments to Government Employees appeared first on Judicial Watch.