What items were seized during the FBI’s Mar‑a‑Lago search and how were they cataloged?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The Justice Department’s unsealed property receipt and inventory show FBI agents seized 33 boxes and containers from former President Trump’s Mar‑a‑Lago residence during the Aug. 8, 2022 search, a haul that included scores of documents with classification markings, numerous empty folders labeled “CLASSIFIED” or “Return to Staff Secretary,” and thousands of other government records intermingled with personal items [1] [2] [3]. The inventory described boxes and general categories but did not disclose the substantive contents of most documents; DOJ said seized classified items were later segregated and screened for privilege and proper storage [1] [4].
1. What was physically taken: boxes, folders, documents and miscellany
The public inventory lists 33 boxes and containers taken from two locations at Mar‑a‑Lago — the “45 Office” and a storage room — and catalogs a mix of materials: documents marked at all classification levels (including items identified as Top Secret, Secret and Confidential), thousands of other U.S. government records without classification markings, dozens of empty folders bearing classified banners or “return” labels, and personal effects such as magazines, newspaper clippings, clothing and gifts [1] [2] [3] [5]. Multiple outlets reported the August seizure recovered more than 100 documents bearing classification markings — reported as roughly 18 Top Secret, 54 Secret and 31 Confidential in one summary — while noting that earlier recoveries to the National Archives and through subpoenas accounted for additional classified pages overall [2] [6].
2. The empty folders and the puzzle they pose
A striking feature of the inventory was the large number of empty folders stamped with classified banners or labeled for return to White House staff — various reports counted dozens and used differing totals (for example, 43 empty folders in the office were reported by some outlets while others aggregated roughly 90 empty folders overall) — and the filings did not resolve why those folders were empty or whether the missing pages were located elsewhere among seized materials [7] [3] [8]. Journalists and the court filings emphasized that the inventory’s descriptive nature leaves open key questions about chain of custody and whether documents had been removed, relocated, or interfiled with other boxes [1] [9].
3. How the government cataloged what it seized
The FBI and DOJ produced a property receipt and a more detailed inventory that described each box or container by number and listed general categories of contents (for example “Top Secret documents,” “news clippings,” or “empty document folders”), rather than reproducing or summarizing the text of individual pages; the government also reported segregating classified materials for secure storage and screening seized items for attorney‑client privilege before further review [10] [4]. Court filings and status reports filed by the investigative team accompanied the inventory, and a magistrate judge’s unsealing made the receipt public; those documents function as the formal cataloging record but are intentionally limited in granular detail to protect classified information and investigative integrity [10] [1].
4. Context, disputes and the competing narratives
The inventory release intensified political debate: DOJ language in filings alleged classified material had been “likely concealed and removed” and that evidence of obstruction would be sought, while Trump’s allies described the list as proof of overreach and cast returned boxes as “personal items,” illustrating how the same inventory became a Rorschach test for partisan narratives [6] [11] [1]. Commentators skeptical of the raid questioned whether the affidavit and probable‑cause showing met standards for a search [12], while reporting outlets focused on the operational detail that sensitive government records had been stored amid personal effects and empty labeled folders — facts the inventory itself documents even as it withholds the full textual contents of the seized papers [2] [3].
5. What the inventory does not — and cannot, publicly — say
The public inventory lists and categorizes seized items but does not disclose the substantive contents of most documents, explain why many labeled folders were empty, nor fully map which specific pages were recovered in January, June subpoenas, or the August search; those evidentiary specifics remain in investigative files and further court filings [1] [6]. Reporting based on the unsealed inventory therefore can state what types and rough counts of items were seized and how they were cataloged in the property receipt, but cannot publicly reconstruct the full evidentiary trail without access to the underlying documents or unredacted filings [1] [10].