IC Operations & Tradecraft — 2026-08-26

Judge Orders FBI Informant to Testify Under Oath as Mosque Surveillance Case Returns to District Court After Supreme Court Remand

BLUFCarter's order to compel full testimony reopens a decade of shielded Operation Flex evidence, though DOJ perjury charges against Monteilh remain unlikely within 90 days.

U.S. District Judge David Carter ordered former FBI informant Craig Monteilh to testify under oath in Orange County federal court on Tuesday, part of a case reviving the 2011 ACLU lawsuit over "Operation Flex," an undercover mosque surveillance operation the FBI ran in 2006 and 2007 12. Monteilh initially declined to confirm authorship of a series of emails alleging misconduct by his FBI handlers and ACLU attorneys, citing a nondisclosure agreement he said he could no longer produce, before relenting after roughly an hour of questioning. Carter told him he could invoke his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination but that any NDA discussion would wait until authorship was confirmed 12. A Justice Department attorney told the court on Monday that the government believes Monteilh "admitted that he committed perjury" in his original declarations to the ACLU, a claim rooted in a June DOJ motion alerting Carter that Monteilh had called his earlier declarations inaccurate and in some instances "made up" 12. Carter said the Supreme Court, which returned the case to district court in April, directed him to investigate Monteilh's shifting statements and told Monteilh he would not be permitted to "cherry-pick" what he discloses 12.

Analysis
Carter's refusal to let Monteilh "cherry-pick" his disclosures signals the court will compel a fuller reckoning of Operation Flex records once state-secrets objections clear, reopening evidence the government shielded for over a decade. DOJ's perjury characterization gives it leverage over Monteilh's cooperation but also undercuts the reliability of testimony extracted under that pressure, and his shifting statements may reflect confusion over conflicting nondisclosure obligations rather than deliberate misrepresentation. Formal perjury or false-statement charges within 90 days are unlikely, since DOJ has signaled the allegation without moving toward indictment and Carter's priority is compelling testimony, not prosecution; charges, if they come, would hand prosecutors a credibility weapon capable of unraveling the ACLU's decade-old surveillance claims, while their absence leaves Carter to weigh Monteilh's recanted allegations on their own merits. Moderate confidence rests on single-hearing reporting from one primary courtroom account with no independent confirmation of DOJ's charging intentions.

2 sources