On Feb. 4, 2026, Fulton County, Georgia, filed a sealed motion in federal court asking the government to return ballots and election materials taken by the F.B.I. in a search last week of the county’s election center. The filing also requests that the affidavit supporting the search warrant be unsealed so local officials and the public can see the factual basis for the raid. County leaders framed the court action as a defense of voter rights and constitutional protections after agents removed pallets of 2020 ballots and related items. The motion comes amid confusion over the involvement of the director of national intelligence, who met with participating agents and then spoke by telephone with former President Trump the next day.
Key Takeaways
- Fulton County filed a sealed motion on Feb. 4, 2026, seeking the return of ballots and election materials seized by the F.B.I. the previous week.
- The motion asks the court to unseal the affidavit used to obtain the search warrant, a summons for public scrutiny of the warrant’s factual basis.
- F.B.I. agents removed multiple pallets of 2020 election materials during an extraordinary search of the county’s election headquarters.
- Robb Pitts, chair of the Fulton County Board of Commissioners, said the county will use all available resources to protect its elections and cited constitutional stakes.
- Local officials were alarmed by the reported participation of the director of national intelligence in post-search meetings and a phone call between agents and former President Trump.
- The New York Times reported that three people with knowledge said Mr. Trump called back and spoke on speakerphone, praising and thanking the agents involved.
Background
Fulton County is Georgia’s most populous county and includes much of Atlanta; it administered votes in the 2020 presidential contest that remain central to ongoing legal and political disputes. Federal searches of state or local election offices are rare and typically involve specific criminal investigations supported by a court-issued warrant. The involvement of federal investigative resources in local election matters has heightened tensions since 2020, when numerous legal challenges and audits targeted ballot handling and certification processes nationwide. Local election officials have repeatedly emphasized the integrity of their procedures while defending access to ballots for audits, recounts, or public records requests under state law.
Under federal practice, search warrants for sensitive material such as ballots are supported by an affidavit that explains probable cause; judges may approve warrants under seal for investigative reasons, but unsealing is often sought to allow public review. The county’s motion seeks not only the physical return of seized items but also transparency about why a federal court authorized the seizure. That request raises questions about the balance between investigatory secrecy and public trust in election administration. At the same time, the high-profile personalities and unusual interagency interactions reported after the raid have intensified scrutiny in both legal and political spheres.
Main Event
Last week F.B.I. agents executed a search warrant at Fulton County’s election center and removed boxes and pallets of materials related to the 2020 presidential election. Officials in Fulton County described the operation as extraordinary and said they were taken aback by the scale of the seizure. The county filed a motion in federal court on Feb. 4, 2026 demanding the return of those items and seeking to unseal the supporting affidavit so lawyers and the public can review the warrant’s justification.
At a Feb. 4 news conference, Robb Pitts framed the filing as a constitutional defense and a protection of voter rights, stating that the county would use ‘‘all resources’’ to safeguard its elections. County spokeswoman Jessica Corbitt confirmed the sealed filing and said legal counsel was pursuing every available avenue to ensure chain-of-custody and access questions are resolved. Local election staff and officials reported confusion over details of the raid, including inventory lists, supervision during removal, and post-seizure handling.
Separately, reporting indicates that the director of national intelligence met with some of the agents after the operation and that agents later had a phone exchange with former President Donald Trump. According to The New York Times, three people with knowledge of the meeting said Mr. Trump called back and spoke on speakerphone, praising and thanking the agents; those accounts are part of the public reporting but not part of the county’s sealed filing. Federal agencies have historically restricted intelligence roles in domestic election administration to matters of foreign influence rather than domestic criminal enforcement.
Analysis & Implications
The county’s demand for the return of ballots raises immediate legal issues about property rights, chain-of-custody, and the standards required for federal seizure of state election materials. If the affidavit shows probable cause of a federal crime, courts are likely to weigh the investigative needs of prosecutors against the public interest in preserving transparent election records. A ruling to keep materials under federal control could limit local access to evidence needed for certifications or recount processes; a ruling in favor of Fulton County would compel the government to justify continued possession or return the items.
Politically, the raid and the reported involvement of the director of national intelligence and a call with a former president amplify partisan narratives that federal authorities are being used to intervene in state election matters. That perception — accurate or not — can erode public confidence in both federal investigations and local election administration. Agencies face the dual challenge of conducting effective investigations while maintaining clear public communications to prevent misinterpretation of lawful actions as political interference.
Legally, the unsealing request is important because the affidavit’s contents determine whether the warrant met constitutional probable-cause standards. Courts often balance secrecy against the public’s right to know; judges could unseal parts of the affidavit, provide redactions, or leave it sealed if disclosure could jeopardize ongoing investigations. The case could set precedents about how courts handle warrants touching on election infrastructure, with implications for future federal-state interactions in contested or high-profile election inquiries.
Comparison & Data
| Item | Fulton County (Feb. 2026) | Typical practice |
|---|---|---|
| Scope of search | Election headquarters; multiple pallets of ballots removed | Often limited to specific locations or items; full removals are uncommon |
| Affidavit status | Filed under seal; county seeks unsealing | Affidavits may be sealed during active probes, later unsealed or redacted |
The table highlights that wholesale removal of election materials is an atypical federal action and that sealed affidavits often trigger public demands for transparency. Courts have varied in handling similar requests; outcomes typically depend on the stated investigative risk and the stage of prosecution. Legal scholars will watch whether the judge orders partial or full disclosure and how custody arrangements are resolved—benchmarks that could influence both future investigative tactics and local record-keeping policies.
Reactions & Quotes
“We will fight using all resources against those who seek to take over our elections. Our Constitution itself is at stake in this fight.”
Robb Pitts, Chair, Fulton County Board of Commissioners
“He called back and spoke to them on speakerphone, praising and thanking them,”
Three people with knowledge (as reported by The New York Times)
County leaders used the news conference to emphasize legal remedies and chain-of-custody concerns; outside observers noted the unusual scope of the federal action. National political actors framed the raid and subsequent reporting through partisan lenses, while legal analysts focused on the affidavit’s likely centrality to upcoming court rulings.
Unconfirmed
- Exact inventory and complete list of materials seized by the F.B.I. have not been publicly released.
- Whether the director of national intelligence directed operational steps during the raid remains unverified in public filings.
- Details of the phone call between agents and former President Trump are reported by sources to a news outlet but are not part of the sealed court record.
- Any criminal charges tied specifically to the seized materials have not been publicly announced as of Feb. 4, 2026.
Bottom Line
Fulton County’s Feb. 4, 2026 motion crystallizes a legal and political clash over federal authority, local election administration, and public transparency. The county seeks immediate return of 2020 ballots and the unsealing of the affidavit that authorized an unusual federal seizure; the judge’s handling of those requests will determine short-term custody and long-term precedent for similar investigations.
Observers should watch three near-term developments: whether the court unseals the affidavit (and how much is redacted), any inventory or custody orders the court issues, and whether federal prosecutors file charges connected to the seized materials. Each outcome will shape how future disputes over elections and federal investigative power are litigated and perceived by the public.