Dear Friend of Press Freedom,

I’m Lauren Harper, the first Daniel Ellsberg chair on government secrecy at Freedom of the Press Foundation (FPF), and welcome to The Classifieds. Read on to learn about the week’s top secrecy news.

Whistleblower alleges admin weaponizes FOIA to sabotage immigrants’ cases

The largest category of Freedom of Information Act requesters is noncitizens seeking copies of their immigration records, known as A-files. These requesters accounted for the bulk of the more than one million FOIA requests received by the Department of Homeland Security last year. Because FOIA requests are often the only way to obtain documentation required to prove or maintain legal status, any delay or change to the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services’ FOIA office can imperil hundreds of thousands of applicants and asylum seekers.

A landmark 2020 ruling, Nightingale v. USCIS, which was the first class action FOIA case, found that the agency had a pattern of violating the act, and required it going forward to process FOIA requests for A-files in 30 days and maintain a zero-case backlog. (The court rightly noted that if an agency aggressively increases its immigration enforcement, it should similarly increase its capacity to process requests for information concerning immigration status.)

It appears USCIS is not following the court’s order. A recent whistleblower complaint and amicus brief filed by the Government Accountability Project argues that the agency is refusing to search for immigrants’ records unless the requests meet unreasonably strict criteria, and is misleading the court about its compliance with Nightingale.

The whistleblower complaint, filed by former USCIS records official Timothy Turner, alleged that the agency’s FOIA staff received several unlawful orders last year. Staff were instructed to:

  • Exclude searching for records that contain any common variation on the spelling of names (an absurd position to take, given that the government recognizes more than 70 different ways to spell Moammar Gadhafi).
  • Not release any documentation unless it was in English, even though immigration records often contain foreign languages.
  • Withhold evidence, like marriage certificates, tax forms, and hearing transcripts, by misapplying privacy exemptions.

Whether FOIA is the best process for requesting or releasing A-files is an open question, but until another system is built, the agency must comply with the current one.

USDA ignores FOIA request for a year, then threatens to close it in 4 days

The Department of Agriculture recently sent me a dreaded “still interested” letter regarding a nearly year-old FOIA request concerning Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program data. These are letters demanding that requesters reaffirm their interest in having their request processed, often after agencies have ignored them for months or years. Otherwise, their requests will be summarily closed. Nothing in the statute allows this practice, but “still interested” letters are a popular backlog-slashing tactic for agencies, especially as their resources have been slashed and we approach the end of the government’s fiscal year.

How long did USDA give me to respond? Four days. Even though I’d not heard anything from the agency in 10 months concerning my request, which sought information about the USDA’s chaotic November 2025 announcement prohibiting states from making full payments to the food assistance program.

The USDA’s response is almost as bad as the Army Corps of Engineers, which, just weeks ago, gave me only three days to confirm that I still wanted records related to reports the agency had raised the water level of a lake Vice President JD Vance used for a family kayaking trip.

Annoyed but undaunted, I immediately reminded USDA that agencies cannot lawfully close a request if they don’t receive a response to these letters, citing a recent ruling secured by American Oversight against the Energy Department underscoring this very point. I also pointed to Justice Department guidance stating agencies must use these letters sparingly and offer at least 30 days for requesters to respond.

Agencies either aren’t getting the message, they are willfully ignoring it, or they are being starved of resources they need to effectively engage with requesters.

Until the situation improves, requesters will have to keep doing the agencies’ job for them: reminding government officials what the law actually requires.

What I’m reading

25 years of mass surveillance is enough

Lawfare

“Twenty-five years after the U.S. government embraced mass surveillance, it’s time to evaluate it as a whole and consider responses that address the problem as a whole,” the authors write. “These questions have long needed serious consideration. But as it becomes increasingly evident that the Trump administration is using mass surveillance to keep itself in power, stifle dissent, and undermine political opponents, these questions are now more urgent than ever.”

Transparently yours,

Lauren Harper
Daniel Ellsberg Chair on Government Secrecy
Freedom of the Press Foundation