Former and current FBI agents who worked on the Mar‑a‑Lago probe have asked Judge Aileen Cannon to clarify whether her injunction barring release of Volume II of Jack Smith’s report prevents them from testifying before a Florida grand jury. The agents — many of whom say they were "unlawfully fired" — fear contempt or other punitive consequences if their testimony touches on material that might be in Volume II. DOJ reportedly told counsel its work "does not disturb [the] Order," but offered no legal explanation. The motion asks the court to resolve the uncertainty so witnesses can cooperate without risking sanctions.
‘Unlawfully Fired’ Mar‑a‑Lago FBI Agents Ask Judge Cannon to Clarify Whether They Can Testify Without Risk of Punishment
Main: An aerial view of former President Donald Trump's Mar-a-Lago club in Palm Beach, Fla., on Aug. 31, 2022 (AP Photo/Steve Helber/File). Right inset: U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon (U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida).
Current and former FBI agents who worked on the Mar‑a‑Lago investigation have asked U.S. District Judge Aileen Cannon to clarify whether her order blocking the public release of Volume II of special counsel Jack Smith’s report prevents them from testifying before a Florida grand jury.
The group filed a motion to intervene — first reported by Politico — stating that federal agents and analysts “participated in the investigation and prosecution of” former President Donald Trump and in the 2022 search of Mar‑a‑Lago that was a central part of his later indictment on classified‑documents and related conspiracy charges.
Judge Cannon earlier dismissed that indictment after concluding Smith was “unlawfully appointed,” calling him “little more than a private citizen.” As part of that ruling, she barred the Department of Justice and then‑Attorney General Pam Bondi (and her successors) from releasing or sharing Volume II of Smith’s final report or any drafts, and from otherwise providing to anyone outside the DOJ any information or conclusions contained in that volume.
The would‑be intervenors say they are prepared to cooperate with grand‑jury proceedings, but they fear that answering questions that touch on nonpublic material in Volume II could expose them to contempt or other punitive consequences under Cannon’s injunction. The filing says DOJ has told counsel that its ongoing work “does not disturb [the] Order,” but that the department provided no explanation of the factual or legal basis for that position.
“Absent clarification, Clients cannot testify before the grand jury without risking violating terms of the Order,” the motion states.
The agents outlined the difficult choice they may face: (1) answer and risk contempt of the injunction; (2) limit or sanitize their testimony to avoid violating the order; or (3) invoke the Fifth Amendment to avoid self‑incrimination. The motion notes the first two options carry potential punitive consequences, while the third could create damaging public optics for former federal employees who are called as witnesses yet may be perceived as withholding information.
Although the filing says most of the agents were “unlawfully fired” and are no longer federal employees, it emphasizes they are respectful of court orders and want to comply with the law. The motion asks Judge Cannon to clarify the scope of her injunction so these witnesses can testify fully and without fear of sanctions.
Why it matters: The court’s clarification could determine whether key witnesses participate openly in the DOJ’s ongoing probe in Florida, or whether uncertainty will hamper the investigation and lead to testimony that is limited, delayed, or protected by the Fifth Amendment.
Help us improve.
