Sen. Chuck Grassley on Tuesday released newly unclassified FBI files that contain confidential-informant allegations tying former first son Hunter Biden and former President Joe Biden to a purported bribery scheme involving Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian energy company.
The records include two FD-1023 forms — one from a Feb. 21, 2019, in-person interview and another from a June 5, 2017, Skype interview — in which unnamed bureau sources told investigators that Burisma owner Mykola Zlochevsky sought to bribe then‑Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko and that members of the Biden family and their associates stood to benefit. The files were obtained by Grassley from FBI whistleblowers and released in coordination with Sen. Ron Johnson, who chairs the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
According to copies reviewed by The New York Post, a 2019 informant said Zlochevsky offered Poroshenko $100 million to halt an Interpol inquiry in exchange for shares and guaranteed profits from gas sales, including from Burisma. That same file states the informant alleged Joe Biden met directly with Poroshenko “to protect the interests” of his son and, by extension, Zlochevsky. The 2017 interview likewise said “JOSEPH BIDEN would ‘take care’ of BURISMA HOLDING issues around the World and POROSHENKO would protect ZLOCHEVSKY,” according to the document.
The files assert that Hunter Biden was paid roughly $1 million a year from May 2014 through April 2019 to serve on Burisma’s board. They also describe an alleged arrangement involving a reverse merger between Burisma and Texas‑based CUB Energy Inc., and broader claims that the transactions were part of a money‑laundering network tied to Ukrainian and Russian figures. The informant notes allege that two CIA officers took Zlochevsky into the office of Ukraine’s then‑prosecutor general, Yuriy Lutsenko, and urged him to stop the investigation into Zlochevsky so the businessman could return to Ukraine after paying damages.
Grassley said in a statement accompanying the release that the senators are not asserting the allegations are true but want to know whether the FBI fully investigated them and what conclusions it reached. “Let’s put this matter to rest, one way or the other,” he said.
The new releases follow earlier disclosures. In July 2023, Grassley released a different informant file from June 2020 that alleged each Biden — Joe and Hunter — took $5 million from Zlochevsky to protect Burisma from a probe led by Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin. That allegation was one of several lines of inquiry produced by Republicans on Capitol Hill in 2020 and in subsequent reports, which documented Hunter Biden’s compensation for serving on Burisma’s board despite his lack of energy‑sector experience.
Grassley and Johnson first investigated alleged Biden family influence‑peddling in 2020, issuing a report that highlighted Hunter Biden’s Burisma pay — reported at as much as $83,333 per month at one point — and other foreign revenue streams tied to him and business associates such as Devon Archer and Christopher Heinz‑Kerry. The congressional report noted Joe Biden was a high‑profile U.S. interlocutor on Ukraine policy during the period when his son and associates were working for Burisma.
Some of the informant material released by Grassley has been subject to criminal proceedings. An informant identified in earlier filings, Alexander Smirnov, was unmasked in an indictment during the tax case brought by Special Counsel David Weiss against Hunter Biden. Smirnov pleaded guilty to lying about a purported $10 million bribe and was sentenced to six years in federal prison last December. The Justice Department under the Trump administration later said in court filings that it was reviewing the government’s theory of the case underlying Smirnov’s conviction.
Grassley told FBI Director Kash Patel at a recent hearing that the bureau has not told Congress whether it investigated text messages, audio files and financial records referenced in the FD‑1023s. The senator said the newly released materials bring the total to three separate FBI confidential human sources who provided information about the Biden family and potential criminal conduct.
The documents contain allegations that involve multiple foreign actors and complex business arrangements; the records also include statements by sources asserting that Russia’s foreign intelligence service, the SVR, had operations aimed at penetrating U.S. elites. The informant claims in the 2019 record link the alleged Burisma transactions to a larger constellation of Ukrainian energy firms and political figures, including those with ties to the Kremlin.
The Post and other outlets requested comment from representatives for Joe and Hunter Biden. The files released by Grassley state the senators obtained them from FBI whistleblowers; the CIA and FBI did not immediately respond to requests for comment noted in the release materials.
The newly unclassified files add to a patchwork of congressional and prosecutorial documents that have been reviewed and litigated in recent years. They rest on confidential‑source reporting that, by statute and practice, the FBI typically corroborates and investigates. Grassley and other Republican lawmakers have argued Congress needs clearer answers about whether and how that corroboration occurred; agency officials have said some information cannot be publicly disclosed because of investigative sensitivities.
Senators releasing the files said they hope the disclosures will prompt further review of the FBI’s handling of the material. Prosecutors and congressional investigators have, at various times, reached differing conclusions about what evidence supported criminal charges or warranted further inquiry. The newly released FD‑1023s themselves do not contain findings from the FBI establishing the truth of the allegations they record; they are reports of what confidential human sources told agents during the cited interviews.
The disclosures are likely to intensify partisan debate in Washington over both the Bidens’ foreign business ties and how federal agencies evaluate and follow up on confidential‑source information. For now, the documents stand as newly public allegations that federal and congressional authorities may continue to examine.