A dispute over access to government records has escalated as a former high-ranking intelligence officer seeks judicial intervention after waiting more than 500 days for a response from a federal agency. The complaint was filed by David Charles Grusch in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia on March 2, 2026, naming the United States Department of Defense as defendant.
According to court documents, Grusch submitted a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request on September 30, 2024, seeking records that he says are highly relevant to his ongoing whistleblower retaliation claims. The filing states that these records are also “the subject of both urgent public concern and significant public interest.” The lawsuit alleges that the Department of Defense failed to make a determination on the FOIA request and did not disclose any requested documents within the time prescribed by law.
Grusch is described in the complaint as a private citizen residing in Colorado and a decorated veteran who served as an intelligence officer with some of the highest security clearances in government service. His roles included providing intelligence assessments used in the President’s Daily Briefing. During his tenure, Grusch claims he discovered activity within the Executive Branch that led him to file an urgent concern complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community regarding potential illegality and misappropriation of funds.
The complaint details that following this Inspector General report, Grusch suffered “retaliation and administrative reprisal.” He ended his executive branch service around May 10, 2023 but continued pursuing administrative complaints with Inspectors General. On July 26, 2023, Grusch testified under oath before the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform about these matters. He also provided information during closed sessions with both Senate and House intelligence committees due to what he describes as “the significance and urgency” of his concerns.
Grusch’s testimony reportedly generated widespread media coverage nationally and internationally. Since then, he has participated in numerous public interviews and appearances at Congress’s request regarding issues related to his prior testimony.
The core legal issue centers on two specific FOIA requests submitted electronically through counsel to the Office of the Secretary of Defense and Joint Staff (OSD/JS). The first sought any documents or correspondence relating to unauthorized disclosure complaints involving Grusch between April 1, 2023 and December 31, 2023; the second sought similar records referencing terms such as “unidentified aerial phenomenon,” “unidentified anomalous phenomenon,” “UAP,” or “UFO.”
On October 3, 2024, OSD/JS confirmed receipt of Grusch’s submission and assigned it case number 25-FP-0002. According to FOIA requirements cited in the complaint (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(7)(B)(ii)), agencies must provide an estimated completion date for such requests. The last estimated completion date given was May 1, 2025; however, Grusch alleges no further updates were provided despite multiple attempts by counsel.
The suit claims that more than 504 days have passed since submission without substantive response or production from DoD or OSD/JS—well beyond FOIA’s statutory twenty-day response period—and asserts that all administrative remedies have been exhausted under federal law.
Three counts are outlined: failure to respond within required time limits; failure to conduct an adequate search for responsive records; and wrongful withholding by not producing non-exempt materials or segregating releasable content from exempt information. The plaintiff argues there is no legal basis for withholding these records under FOIA.
As relief, Grusch asks the court to declare violations by DoD under FOIA statutes; order expedited searches for all responsive documents; require immediate disclosure of non-exempt materials; enjoin improper withholding; award reasonable costs and attorney fees; tax costs against DoD; and grant further relief deemed necessary by the court.
The attorneys listed for David Charles Grusch are Basil M. Al-Qaneh (VSB#99933) and Anthony I. Shin (VSB#85335) from Shin Law Office PLC in Leesburg, Virginia; Huntington M. Willis (NCSB #46506) from Martin & Jones PLLC in Raleigh, North Carolina is co-counsel pending pro hac vice admission. The case is identified as Case No. 1:26-cv-00607.
Source: 126cv00607_Grusch_v_United_States_Department_of_Defense_Complaint_Eastern_District_Virginia.pdf
