FBI Returns Trump’s Property That Was Seized During Mar-A-Lago Raid

The FBI has returned personal property belonging to President Donald Trump that was seized during its raid on Mar-a-Lago in August 2022.

“The FBI is giving the President his property back that was taken during the unlawful and illegal raids,” White House Communications Director Steven Cheung told The Daily Wire. “We are taking possession of the boxes today and loading them onto Air Force One.”

Daily Wire White House Correspondent Mary Margaret Olohan personally witnessed the FBI loading many boxes onto Air Force One as she boarded the flight to travel with the president to Palm Beach.

And I saw many of these boxes being loaded with my own eyes: https://t.co/u1PkG6F1i5

— Mary Margaret Olohan (@MaryMargOlohan) February 28, 2025

The FBI raided Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida on August 8, 2022, as part of a criminal investigation into his handling of classified material after leaving office.

“These are dark times for our Nation, as my beautiful home, Mar-A-Lago in Palm Beach, Florida, is currently under siege, raided, and occupied by a large group of FBI agents,” Trump said in a statement at the time. “After working and cooperating with the relevant Government agencies, this unannounced raid on my home was not necessary or appropriate.”

The investigation had focused on material that Trump brought with him to Mar-a-Lago after leaving the White House that contained classified material that officials had sought to retrieve from Trump since early 2021.

“They even broke into my safe!” Trump added at the time. “It is political targeting at the highest level!”

Out of the several criminal cases that Trump faced during his four years out of office, the documents case also was the most serious.

However, the case, led by special counsel Jack Smith, was dismissed by District Court Judge Aileen Cannon in July of last year because “Smith’s appointment violates the Appointments Clause of the U.S. Constitution,” Cannon wrote in an order granting Trump’s motion to dismiss.

Cannon also found that Smith’s “use of a permanent indefinite appropriation” violated the Appropriations Clause of the Constitution, but she said the court “need not address the proper remedy for that funding violation given the dismissal on Appointments Clause grounds.”

Daniel Chaitin and Mary Margaret Olohan contributed to this report.