FOIA News: Brechner FOI Project on the DOJ Annual Report

FOIA requests, denials, backlogs, delays, costs surge in FY 2024

Brechner FOI Project, Apr. 30, 2025

According to new figures out this week from the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Information Policy, Freedom of Information Act requests have dramatically surged in the past year, along with denials, backlogs, delays and costs. 

The annual FOIA Report for fiscal year 2024, released April 28, indicates that federal agencies saw a 25% increase of requests, from 1.2 million in 2023 to 1.5 million in 2024. As well, backlogged requests increased 33%, from 200,843 to 267,056. That translated into longer response times for simple requests, from an average of 39 days to 44 days. 

Read more here.

FOIA News: FOIA & the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts

[FOIA Advisory first reported on this lawsuit on April 24, 2025)

Trump Allies Sue John Roberts To Give White House Control Of Court System

Josh Kovensky, Talking Points Memo, May 2, 2025

Close allies of President Trump are asking a judge to give the White House control over much of the federal court system.

In a little-noticed lawsuit filed last week, the America First Legal Foundation sued Chief Justice John Roberts and the head of the Administrative Office of U.S. Courts.

The case ostensibly proceeds as a FOIA lawsuit, with the Trump-aligned group seeking access to judiciary records. But, in doing so, it asks the courts to cede massive power to the White House: the bodies that make court policy and manage the judiciary’s day-to-day operations should be considered independent agencies of the executive branch, the suit argues, giving the President, under the conservative legal movement’s theories, the power to appoint and dismiss people in key roles.

Multiple legal scholars and attorneys TPM spoke with reacted to the suit with a mixture of dismay, disdain and laughter. Though the core legal claim is invalid, they said, the suit seems to be a part of the fight that the administration launched and has continued to escalate against the courts over the past several months: ignoring a Supreme Court order to facilitate the return of a wrongly removed Salvadoran man, providing minimal notice to people subject to the Alien Enemies Act, flaunting an aggressive criminal case against a state court judge.

Read more here.

Court opinions issued Apr. 29, 2025

Protect the Public’s Trust v. Nat’l Labor Relations Bd. (D.D.C.) — in a case involving the disclosure of an ethics memo concerning potential recusal of NLRB member Gwynne Wilcox from decision-making on the Board’s February 26, 2020 “Joint Employer” rule, granting in part the requester’s motion for summary judgment; holding the agency failed to “sufficiently establish[] that” portions of the memo are protected by Exemption 5 and the attorney work-product privilege, but ordering in camera review before any final disclosure determination; noting the disputed question of whether the ethics memo was created in anticipation of future litigation, rather than in response to a request for ethics advice, and explaining the agency’s supporting declarations did not consider “how the redacted portions” would have differed if they “merely sought recusal guidance,” contrary to the government’s position; recognizing, for example, that NLRB members have an “independent ethical obligation to seek . . . [recusal] guidance independent of any anticipated litigation, and nothing in the unredacted portion of the . . . Memo appears to reference litigation strategies or defenses.”

Ferrera Parra v. Judicial Conference of the United States (D.D.C.) — dismissing, in relevant part, a pro se complaint that “approaches stating a FOIA claim” because “it is unmanageable to discern the necessary supporting facts and details relating thereto, particularly because they are deeply conflated with plaintiff’s myriad other grievances.”

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.

Court opinion issued Apr. 25, 2025

Accuracy in Media v. Cent. Intelligence Agency (D.C. Cir.) — in a 21-year-old case about records of American prisoners-of-war and others missing from action in the Vietnam War, reversing the district court and remanding; concluding the CIA’s “truncated search terms could not reasonably have been expected to capture relevant records” due to “notable omissions,” an “unexplained mismatch” between the “identified search terms” and “the scope of the FOIA request,” and failure to explain why the use of “singular or plural forms” of the employed terms was irrelevant insofar as “the use of one [might] exclude[] the other”; noting, “[t]he CIA’s worry about further narrowing the search is no answer to the problem of it not being broad enough to begin with,” especially since the agency “failed to adequately explain why fewer search terms would yield more results when, in this case, logic suggests the opposite is true.”

Summaries of all published opinions issued in 2025 are available here. Earlier opinions are available for 2024 and from 2015 to 2023.

FOIA News: CREW allowed limited discovery in DOGE FOIA case

Judge Christopher Cooper has granted in part a motion for discovery in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, No. 25-0511 (D.D.C.), perhaps the most prominent case to challenge DOGE’s status of an “agency” under the FOIA. The limited discovery order is intended to allow CREW to gather information about “USD’S influence and operations for purposes of determining whether it is exercising the requisite authority” to qualify as a “agency.”

Although limited jurisdictional discovery is permitted in FOIA cases, it is quite rare. Discovery into DOGE’s organization and operations, however, has been granted in several other ongoing cases involving other laws, such as the Privacy Act. Here, Judge Cooper noted that, contrary to the government’s arguments, the DOGE-related Executive Orders, “far from resolving the question against CREW,” instead suggest “that USDS is exercising substantial independent authority,” and news reports further suggest how that authority is being exercised “across vast areas of the federal government.”

At the same time, the court noted that several topics—such as aspects of DOGE’s record-keeping policies—are not germane to the legal issues at hand in the FOIA litigation. The court will disallow an interrogatory seeking a list of the DOGE Administrators from the start of the current Administration, and will not require disclosure of DOGE visitor logs, but it will require the entity to identify all classified or sensitive information systems its has sought to access. Of note, the court expressed how it was “somewhat baffled” by DOGE’s claim that it does “not own[]” the “@DOGE X account.”

FOIA Advisor will continue to report on this case as it develops.

FOIA News: DOGE ordered to process CREW's FOIA request at accelerated rate

Yesterday, Judge Christopher Cooper entered a minute order instructing the U.S. DOGE Service to start processing records responsive to a FOIA request filed by Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington. That request is the subject of ongoing, high-profile litigation in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, No. 25-0511 (D.D.C.). The complete order can be found on the docket, available here.

Judge Cooper has ordered DOGE (and OMB) to process CREW’s requests “at a rate of 1000 pages per month,” which is above the now-standard 500 pages. Despite ongoing briefing concerning DOGE’s status as an “agency” under the FOIA, the district court reasoned that processing could proceed given its previous ruling that DOGE “is likely subject to FOIA,” and any other result would result in further “processing delays” down the road. Importantly, Judge Cooper noted the government need not “produce any documents,” but only process them. The Court justified accelerated processing based on its finding that the records at issue are “important” and “of the highest national concern,” especially for “ongoing public and congressional debates.” CREW also successfully argued for expedited processing in its initial motion for preliminary relief.

Interestingly, in response to the government’s arguments about the lack of any FOIA apparatus at DOGE, the court explained there is “no reason why the existing FOIA office at OMB, or those [offices] elsewhere within the Executive Office of the President, could not assist with processing[.]”

Finally, the court indicated it “might entertain a request for a higher processing rate should it be satisfied that CREW” has worked to narrow its request further, and if “production”—or, perhaps, as the Court likely intended to say, processing updates from the government—are “yielding meaningful results.”

FOIA Advisor has previously reported on updates in this case, and it will continue to do so.

FOIA Commentary: White House FOIA Reading Rooms

Recent media reports have included comments from the requester community about the removal of FOIA “reading rooms” from websites of those components of the Executive Office of the President (“EOP”) that qualify as “agencies,” as defined by Section 552(f)(1). Although these electronic libraries were inexplicably unavailable for several weeks—arguably, in violation of the FOIA’s proactive disclosure requirements—all FOIA landing pages have been restored.

There are five EOP “agencies” subject to FOIA. Links to their FOIA pages are provided below.

1. Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”)

2. Council on Environmental Quality (“CEQ”)

3. Office of Science and Technology Policy (“OSTP”)

4. Office of National Drug Control Policy (“ONDCP”)

5. Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”)

To be sure, not all of these components have equally robust reading rooms. All the components have FOIA webpages with details about submitting requests. Further research could reveal whether archived reading rooms from prior Administrations contained more information. At the least, though, the availability of these pages and the restoration of electronic libraries is a promising step towards full FOIA compliance.

[N.B. See our links to all agency Reading Rooms here.]

FOIA News: Further details emerge about HHS FOIA reorganization

Kennedy shutters several FOIA offices at HHS

By Ben Johansen, Politico, Apr. 3, 2025

Officials at the Department of Health and Human Services this week shut down several offices tasked with Freedom of Information Act requests, a step billed as consolidation that could weaken transparency as the crucial agency undergoes an unprecedented overhaul, according to four people familiar with the cuts who were granted anonymity to speak freely.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention was among the agencies that had its FOIA office eliminated late Monday night, according to a synopsis of the cuts shared at a CDC staff meeting Tuesday and seen by POLITICO.

Each agency, such as the CDC and FDA, had its own individual FOIA offices, which received thousands of requests per year. Now, in accordance with Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s reconstruction of the department, HHS will consolidate its FOIA requests into one HHS-wide office, according to a senior HHS official who was granted anonymity to discuss ongoing deliberations. Next steps are still in flux.

Read more here.

FOIA News: IRS FOIA Backlog Expected to Grow

IRS FOIA Backlog Expected to Grow

By Lauren Loricchio & Amanda Athanasiou, TaxNotes, Apr. 3, 2025

The backlog of Freedom of Information Act requests at the IRS and Treasury is expected to increase during President Trump’s second term, amid mounting concerns about the administration’s transparency.

“There was a pretty healthy increase in the volume of FOIA requests” during Trump’s first term, said Matt Topic of Loevy & Loevy.

Topic, an attorney who specializes in FOIA litigation, said the first Trump administration failed to do what was necessary to keep up with the volume of requests, and the Biden administration “did absolutely nothing to fix those backlogs.”

The COVID-19 pandemic also contributed to FOIA backlogs at the IRS and other federal agencies.

The number of FOIA requests backlogged at the IRS as of the end of the fiscal year (from the previous annual Treasury FOIA report) has varied, increasing from 605 in 2008 to 916 in 2024, according to data on FOIA.gov. In 2008 there were 1,297 backlogged requests at the end of the fiscal year at Treasury, and in 2024 there were 2,468.

“Backlogs have been a long-standing issue,” Chioma Chukwu of government watchdog American Oversight said, adding that President Obama signed the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, which hasn’t “helped with the backlog in the way one would have thought.”

“It’s still too early to tell how things will play out, but we have reason to believe it will be infinitely worse in the second [Trump] administration,” Chukwu said.

Read more here. [NB: This article contains multiple quotes from FOIA Advisor’s own Ryan Mulvey.]

FOIA News: Federal judge enters preservation order in DOGE FOIA case

On April 2, 2025, Judge Beryl Howell, who sits on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, granted American Oversight’s motion for a preservation order in American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, one of several lawsuits challenging the status of DOGE as an “agency” for purposes of the FOIA. As FOIA Advisor previously reported, DOGE released a copy of its records retention policy under the Presidential Records Act as part of its opposition to American Oversight’s motion.

Among other things, Judge Howell explained in her minute order that, “[n]otwithstanding the fact that DOGE has issued a litigation hold,” its personnel “‘may not fully appreciate their obligations to preserve federal records,’ under either the FOIA or the Presidential Records Act, as ‘many of [the] staffers are reported to have joined the federal government only recently and . . . may not be steeped in its document retention policies,’ . . . which, under FOIA, reaches even those government records stored on private devices[.]” She also noted that “[a]dditional concerns arise due to the fact that DOGE ‘operat[es] with unusual secrecy,’ which includes the use of ‘Signal, an encrypted messaging app with an auto-delete function,’ . . . and has refused to stipulate to its preservation obligations of documents that are at the heart of this litigation.” Finally, Judge Howell reasoned that, “to the extent that DOGE insists that this entity's compliance with the Presidential Records Act . . . is sufficient compliance with preservation obligations in this case” that “only confirms plaintiff's concern about the need for a preservation order since . . . what qualifies as a record and the respective retention obligations differ between the PRA and the FOIA[.]” Moreover, “DOGE's actual compliance with PRA record retention obligations mitigates any burden of DOGE also complying with obligations to preserve records at issue in this case and prevent spoliation of records and information during the pendency of this litigation.”