Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem and Secretary of State Marco Rubio (who’s also acting administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development and acting archivist of the United States) are just two of the administration officials who are ignoring members of Congress when the legislators request information about the officials’ agencies.

This political stonewalling, combined with the mass firings at executive branch Freedom of Information Act offices, represents an existential threat to Congress’ investigative and oversight powers.

If Congress wants to stop President Donald Trump from wresting even more authority away from the legislative branch, every member should vocally defend FOIA offices. Not doing so could undermine the entire legislative process.

Multipronged threat to congressional investigations

Congress’ investigative and oversight authorities are broad — and, with the dismissing of most of the executive branch’s inspectors general, may be the only effective way to conduct agency oversight.

But congressional efforts are being stymied by several overlapping problems:

  • Agencies are ignoring legitimate requests for information from Congress.
  • Members of Congress increasingly need to resort to filing FOIA requests for information.
  • FOIA offices, which can serve as hubs for responding to all information requests from the legislative branch and the public, are under attack.
  • Elon Musk-inspired calls to abandon FOIA in favor of automated disclosures could make it easier to hide politically inconvenient documents.

Ignoring legitimate congressional requests

During Trump’s first term, his administration barred agencies from responding to congressional requests for information when those requests did not come from full committees or subcommittees. This stalled legitimate oversight being conducted by the minority.

Evidence suggests this is happening again during Trump’s second term. It’s not uncommon for members of Congress to be told their requests are too broad, the information is classified, or that agencies have no records on the information sought.

Congressional committees can sue federal agencies when they are denied information, but this is an arduous process, and individual members face significant legal challenges when filing suit.

Congress needs FOIA

Members of Congress should not have to file FOIA requests to try and get information from agencies, but it is a growing necessity.

Of course, as Democratic Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse noted during a recent congressional hearing — the FOIA process is also slow and cumbersome for members of Congress, even during normal times.

But these are not normal times. And Congress must ask itself how it can investigate activities at the following agencies now that their FOIA offices have been closed or drastically cut.

FOIA offices process all kinds of information requests

These firings should be a priority for the legislative branch — and not just because Congress passed FOIA nearly 60 years ago and has since amended the law half a dozen times with overwhelming bipartisan support.

Congress should care about FOIA offices because many executive branch agencies use these offices as hubs to respond to all information requests, whether they come from congressional committees, the Government Accountability Office, the legislative branch’s investigative agency, or the public.

When the Department of Government Efficiency arbitrarily and capriciously places entire FOIA offices on administrative leave, it degrades responses to FOIA requests as well as legislative investigations, which address every agency policy and work product imaginable, from how the U.S. could reduce maternal and infant deaths to improving the national school lunch program.

FOIA offices need more autonomy, not to be replaced by bots

Some, like Musk, look at long-standing complaints that FOIA is broken and suggest that the system needs to be replaced with automation, thus reducing the need for humans to be involved in the process. They even question the need for FOIA to exist at all.

FOIA desperately needs more automation and better technology to reduce delays. But the success of any automation project relies on agencies proactively disclosing in good faith the documents necessary for oversight.

So theirs is a Pollyannaish view during the best of times, and is a willfully disingenuous one in the current political environment.

Oftentimes, FOIA officers are the lone voices within agencies pushing back when other components want to keep information secret. If agencies are allowed to downsize FOIA offices in favor of automating disclosure, it’s easy to imagine a scenario where they only post information that is politically convenient to release.

FOIA offices need more autonomy and authority — not to be replaced by a bot.

Congress cannot do its job without access to agency records. If it does not fight aggressively for FOIA offices to remain open, well-staffed, and independent, it will be limiting its own ability to legislate.