While as many have pointed out, the search warrant, unsealed Friday, August 12, could have been made public by Trump himself, the affidavit is a trickier matter.

It is likely to contain even more detailed information on the grounds for the Mar-a-Lago search, with major media outlets calling for its secrets to be made public.

The DOJ has fought against this desire, claiming it could jeopardize their investigation and reveal sensitive information, such as national security information.

But as the magistrate judge Bruce Reinhart mulls the weighty decision, is there any precedent for such a move and what happens next in the event it is revealed? Newsweek went on a deep dive to find out more.

What We Do Know

As established following the unsealing of the search warrant, grounds for the raid on Mar-a-Lago were based in part on national security concerns.

This was precipitated by speculation and reports that documents held at Trump’s Florida residence might have contained information about nuclear deterrents or technology.

Newsweek has written about the history of nuclear technology trades Trump executed with Saudi Arabia while he was in office, as well as the nuclear arms race deterrent agreement the U.S. had with Russia, which the country withdrew from during the Trump administration.

While the DOJ also released an items list of material seized from Mar-a-Lago, this did not advance details about the substance behind the potential violations.

To look at this in more detail, Newsweek spoke to a number of experts about the status of the affidavit’s contents and why the DOJ may be hesitant to release it.

Former federal prosecutor and professor of law at the University of Memphis, Steven John Mulroy, told Newsweek that, as the affidavit may well have had to make the case for probable cause to a judge, it could “discuss in some detail matters of national security.”

“It may also be the case that it would be necessary to reveal information about a confidential informant, jeopardizing the anonymity of said informant,” he added.

“Or, it might also reveal sources and methods of obtaining information, or the nature of the ongoing investigation, which could hamper that ongoing investigation.

“Any of these would be valid reasons for the DOJ opposing the unsealing of the affidavit.”

Supporting Mr Mulroy’s view, former U.S. attorney and University of Michigan Law School professor Barbara McQuade said the affidavit wouldn’t be unsealed until after charges were filed.

“Here, no charges have been filed and may never be,” she added.

“The purpose of that practice is to avoid disclosing information that could compromise the investigation, lead to destruction of evidence, or permit witness tampering.

“Here, protecting the identity of any cooperating witnesses may also be necessary to protect their safety from violence by those who are angry about the search of Trump’s residence.

“Affidavits also may contain grand jury material, which must be protected under law unless, and until, a judge permits disclosure.”

So, there is some consensus among the legal experts that spoke to Newsweek that unsealing an affidavit risks jeopardizing the anonymity of a witness, exposing other confidential information or (as alleged in Trump’s case) revealing information, which compromises national security.

This assessment is supported in practice too; in 2018 an affidavit attached to the investigation of former Donald Trump campaigner Paul Manafort was unsealed, revealing he had received a $10 million loan from a Russian oligarch with ties to the Kremlin.

However, by that point Special Counsel Robert Mueller had already charged Manafort with money laundering, bank and tax fraud and failing to register as a foreign agent, among other crimes (all of which he pleaded not guilty to).

Manafort was later sentenced to seven and a half years in prison for a combination of witness tampering, conspiracy, holding money in foreign bank accounts and tax and bank fraud. He was pardoned by Trump in the final days of his presidency.

With this precedent in mind, what grounds are there (if any) for unsealing Trump’s affidavit?

The DOJ has said it could “jeopardize the integrity of this national security investigation.” Prosecutors claim it contains sensitive information about key witnesses and that the investigation included highly classified material.

Nonetheless, some of the U.S.’ most powerful media organizations want the magistrate judge Reinhart to release it.

Doing so could lead to a more honest conversation about the Mar-a-Lago raid, which has so far been dogged by speculation, rumor and mistruths.

Professor Bruce Green, a former federal prosecutor for the Southern District of New York, told Newsweek that the principle here is that “under the First Amendment and common law that once the search is executed, the public has a right to see the application submitted to the judge in support of the search warrant.”

However, as Mr Green explained, the objections set about the DOJ could keep the document sealed or lead to redaction of information from the application.

“If the targets of the search (and the underlying investigation) are not known, those individuals might have a privacy interest in keeping their identity secret (but) that’s not relevant here,” he added.

“If informants who were the source of the information in the application are not publicly known, they may have a privacy interest and the government may have an interest in keeping their identities private.

“If the investigation is ongoing, the government may have an interest in keeping details of the investigation private until the investigation wraps up, to reduce the risk of witness tampering and subornation of perjury, or otherwise to protect the integrity of the investigation.”

Nonetheless, that preference could be beyond the government’s control, particularly if the public interest in unsealing the document outweighed those wishes.

“There are plenty of published federal-court decisions on this subject. Until someone asks a court to get involved, the government is likely to be overcautious or may be influenced by illegitimate considerations,” Mr Green added

“It is more likely that redactions are justified than that keeping the whole application under seal can be justified. Classified information will obviously be redacted.”

The US Courts website provides information about how journalists can apply to unseal documents.

There are any number of successful examples of journalists unsealing an affidavit, including in 2018 when the Associated Press and The Philadelphia Enquirer successfully petitioned a judge to reveal a case involving the FBI and a cache of Civil war era gold.

The unsealed document showed that a bureau agent had applied for a federal warrant to seize the gold “stolen during the Civil War” and hidden in a cave, claiming the state of Pennsylvania might take it for themselves if the federal authorities asked for permission.

However, the US Courts explainer does caveat that “Courts sometimes seal documents that contain sensitive material, such as classified information affecting national security or information involving trade secrets.”

This could jeopardize the opportunity media outlets are seeking to get Trump’s affidavit out. However, given the undoubted profile of the investigation, the DOJ’s wishes for it to remain outside public view (where its censorship could add fuel to misinformation surrounding the case) might be unwarranted.

In the relatively short space of time since the raid, Newsweek has reported on several misinformed claims about the search, including claims that Trump was allowed to destroy classified documents.

What We Don’t Know

As established, the details have been a guarded secret beyond the limited amount of information released through the warrant and the list of items that were taken from Mar-a-Lago.

We also don’t know what Trump’s motivations are for having it unsealed. Perhaps his thought is that whatever case it could present, it would provide him more leverage to disprove any allegations ahead of potential charges.

The media’s conviction is clear—the story is among the most (if not the most) significant in U.S. politics this year, and perhaps in years, with commentators arguing it is both a catalyst and roadblock in Trump’s chances for reelection.

Even if Trump was convicted under U.S. Code violations, some of which would subsequently bar him from reelection, that action would almost certainly lead to conspiratorial allegations accusing the elite of silencing Trump and his supporters.

Trump’s remaining allies could then use the conviction to further their own attempts to seek office and solidify the “MAGA” ideology within the U.S. political landscape.

This is a narrative that has played out well after the FBI raid and would undoubtedly be utilized to some extent by sympathizers. Whether it would be successful is another matter.

Ultimately, until Reinhart makes his decision it could be a great deal of waiting until we begin to uncover the beating heart of this story.

Newsweek has contacted Donald Trump and the Department of Justice for comment.