The federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) Advisory Committee, on which I serve as a non-governmental member, held a public meeting Thursday, live-streamed and recorded on YouTube, and there's a lot cooking, including research on unduly burdensome requests and compliance barriers, and recommendations for statutory reform.
National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) Chief Operating Officer Jay Trainer spoke at the opening of the meeting. He observed a rise in overall public trust in the federal government from 23% in 2024 to 33% in 2025 in Gallup survey results and lauded the role of the FOIA and the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) in building trust in the federal government.
I agree with him. But I also agree with Kevin Bell, a former member of the Advisory Committee who this year resigned his government post at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and thus his government seat on the Advisory Committee. Bell's resignation to me demonstrated how the Elon Musk-led administration efficiency initiative cost us talented public servants while doing little actually to achieve efficiency, or even while thereby undermining efficiency.
Bell spoke in the public comment period of the public meeting and observed that the poll results are somewhat skewed, in that people probably answer the question with outsized reference to elected officials and little knowledge of the civil service. His supposition is supported by the fact that digging into the poll data shows that the uptick since 2024 is largely in a swell in Republican confidence. And what has changed since 2024 is the political landscape, not the workaday civil service, whatever Muskian bluster might have us believe.
However, Bell pointed out, if Americans really knew what civil servants do everyday, as demonstrated by the informed dedication of the public employees who serve on the Advisory Committee, the poll numbers would indicate vastly higher confidence in the federal government than one in three Americans.
By the way, that's not to say that there isn't room for efficiency improvements, including cuts, in the federal government. There are plenty of ways to do that without depriving the taxpayers of their best workers. Corporate welfare would be a good starting point, or at least a shift in those subsidies to investments that would stimulate exactly the kind of economic growth the Trump administration purports to desire. That's another story.
Maybe it's because I am teaching comparative law right now, but I was delighted to hear a comparative perspective in the work of the volume-and-frequency subcommittee, among the three subcommittees the Advisory Committee has organized.
Regarding volume and frequency, the Advisory Committee heard a presentation by members David Cuillier, University of Florida, and Shelley Kimball, Johns Hopkins University, as well as guest Ben Worthy, University of London, on their work, also with Suzanne Piotrowski, Rutgers University, on "unduly burdensome" requests—also known as "vexatious requests," though that term is not preferred because of its normative hint of ill intention. Piotrowski, incidentally, is the founding coordinator of the Global Conference on Transparency Research; I posted GCTR's call for papers for 2026 here at The Savory Tort earlier this month.
Cuillier, Kimball, Worthy, and Piotrowski's research is ongoing, but thus far they have drawn up a list of strategies that might help to manage the problem of unduly burdensome requests, and a list of strategies that do not work, or that represent non-constructive policy choices. They shared with the committee these strategies that are positive or might have potential if implemented thoughtfully (my comments bracketed):
- Training (for staff and public)
- Technology/resources (e.g., line-item budget)
- Proactive posting
- Front-end discussions
- Express lanes [expediting some requests, such as first-person] and "zippering" [managing one request from a multiple requester, then another from another requester, then another from the multiple requester, then another from another requester, and so on]
- Staggered dissemination
- Differential copy fees
- Independent commission (e.g., Connecticut [Freedom of Information Commission])
These are ill advised strategies, some of which, concerningly, are growing go-tos:
- Search/redaction fees
- Vague laws to allow denial
- Time extensions
- Quotas/caps
- Fines and jail time
- Signed promises to be good
- Prohibitions on anonymous requests
- Bans on AI
Another problematic strategy is to probe the intentions, or motives, of the requester for some kind of legitimacy measure. Co-authors and I opined 15 years ago on requester motive immateriality as a core common law and statutory norm of access law, and it should be preserved. It makes no sense to give a record to one requester and not to another, owing to motive, and risks discriminatory judgment about the merits of record use. A record's public disposition should be decided on its content, within its four corners.
The research is inherently comparative owing to Worthy's involvement as a scholar of the UK Freedom of Information Act. But the authors' multinational cognizance is broader still. For example, the team is studying standards employed by the Connecticut commission that Connecticut borrowed from Canadian law in Ontario.
Cuillier mentioned that other countries almost uniformly distinguish commercial requesters, that is, those which will make money from information processing, such as information brokers, from first-person and public-interest requesters, with regard to fees. The former fairly might be required to pay their way, while the latter may be entitled to free access. Co-authors and I also memorialized in our previous work how this commercial-requester distinction worked a modest but justifiable compromise to the historical common law and statutory norm of requester identity neutrality. However laudable that norm in theory, it predated the information era, when information brokering became a business model.
Advisory Committee member and Professor Margaret Kwoka asked whether the researchers and subcommittee were parsing their conception of fees, understanding that, my words: not all fees are created equal. That is, a fee might be used for a laudable purpose, such as having a commercial requester pay its way, or, in contrast, for an objectionable purpose, such as discouraging public access generally.
In discussion of the point, Worthy referenced Ireland's experiment changing free access under the Irish Freedom of Information Act to a flat fee of €15 in 2003. The purported objective, he said, was to deter unduly burdensome requests. But there was little evidence that happened. What did happen was a 75% drop across all requests. Cuillier said that Irish usage of the public records law still has not rebounded since the fee was rescinded. Yet, he added, Canadian provinces are now busy about adopting fees upon the same ill-informed theory.
Slides from Cuillier, et al.'s presentation for the volume-and-frequency subcommittee are available on the Sept. 11, 2025, meeting page of the FOIA Advisory Committee. They include QR codes to locate three papers the researchers have presented previously, two at the GCTR conference in Brussels in May 2024, and one at the conference of the Southern Political Science Association in Puerto Rico in January 2025. The volume-and-frequency subcommittee is co-chaired by Advisory Committee members Nick Wittenberg, corporate counsel at Armedia, and Nieva Brock, Associate General Counsel at the Defense Department.
For the statutory reform subcommittee, Advisory Committee members Ryan Mulvey, policy counsel for Americans for Prosperity, reported several subjects on which the subcommittee aims to draft recommendations:
- Adding affirmative disclosure categories
- Making FOIA logs available affirmatively
- Ensuring judicial review of affirmative disclosure, that is, FOIA "reading rooms"
- Incentivizing alternative to FOIA requests
- Assisting agencies with Rehabilitation Act accessibility compliance
- Empowering agency officials to make affirmative disclosures
- Making the FOIA Advisory Committee a non-discretionary federal advisory committee
The statutory reform subcommittee is co-chaired by Mulvey and Advisory Committee member Whitney Frazier-Jenkins, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, which, by the way, is a high-achieving if lesser-known agency in FOIA compliance.
For the implementation subcommittee, Advisory Committee member Deborah Moore, chief FOIA officer for the Department of Education, reported on an initiative to study barriers to FOIA implementation by engaging with focus groups of FOIA officers within agencies. Kimball and Advisory Committee member Sarah Jones Weicksel, executive director of the American Historical Association, designed the research project, in which I will participate this fall.
Also for the implementation subcommittee, I reported on the Comment of Freedom of Information Scholars submitted by academic colleagues and me regarding the ongoing revision of the Federal Acquisition Regulation, reported here at The Savory Tort in July and now also among public comments to OGIS for the Advisory Committee. The subcommittee is co-chaired by Jason Baron, University of Maryland, who co-signed the comment, along with Cuillier, Kimball, and Kwoka, and by Marianne Manheim, supervisory government information specialist at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Advisory Committee member Frank LoMonte, a recovering academic and now senior counsel at CNN, also gave invaluable advice on the comment.
This was the sixth meeting of the sixth term of the Advisory Committee. The next public meeting is scheduled for December 4, at 10 a.m. U.S. EST. Public comments are invited online at OGIS and at public meetings. Read more about the Advisory Committee, its members, and OGIS FOIA compliance work at the OGIS blog, The FOIA Ombuds. The Advisory Committee is chaired by OGIS Director Alina Semo and afforded essential coordination by the many-hatted Kirsten Mitchell, compliance team lead, federal FOIA ombudsman, and designated federal officer at OGIS.
