Understanding Public Information and Classified Information: A Guide to Government Transparency

Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

The United States government creates and manages a vast ocean of information. This ranges from publicly accessible reports and datasets to highly sensitive national security secrets.

For citizens, understanding what is public versus what is classified is fundamental to navigating their relationship with government, exercising their rights, and participating effectively in democracy.

Information maintained by the Federal Government is considered a national asset, and grasping how it is managed is vital for civic participation and ensuring government accountability. The very foundation of representative government rests on the principle of an informed citizenry, capable of holding its officials accountable.

This guide explains the definitions of public and classified information, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), the classification system under Executive Order 13526, declassification processes, and the essential role citizens play in this landscape.

Understanding Public Information: Your Right to Know

The concept of “public information” is central to an open and transparent government. It encompasses the data and records that the government makes available, or is required to make available, to its citizens. This accessibility is not merely a convenience—it is a cornerstone of democratic accountability.

What Counts as Public Information

Officially, the U.S. government defines “public information” as “any information, regardless of form or format, that an agency discloses, disseminates, or makes available to the public.” This definition is intentionally broad, covering everything from printed documents and official reports to digital datasets and online resources.

Beyond this formal definition, public information serves the broader purpose of educating and informing citizens about significant issues, policies, and governmental activities. Historically, the government has actively disseminated public information—for instance, through campaigns during World War I and World War II aimed at garnering support for national efforts.

The evolution from government-controlled dissemination to a system that also empowers citizens to actively request information marks a significant shift. While the government proactively releases considerable information, the modern emphasis, particularly through mechanisms like the Freedom of Information Act, is increasingly on the citizen’s inherent right to access government records.

The Freedom of Information Act: The Key to Access

The primary legal tool empowering citizens to access government information is the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), codified in Title 5 of the United States Code, § 552. Enacted in 1966 and amended several times since, FOIA establishes a statutory right for the public to request records from federal executive branch agencies.

Its fundamental purpose is to ensure an informed citizenry, promote government accountability, and serve as a check against potential corruption or mismanagement. The U.S. Supreme Court has underscored that FOIA is intended to shed light on an agency’s performance of its statutory duties.

The scope of FOIA is extensive, applying to “agency records,” which can include print documents, photographs, videos, maps, emails, and other electronic records created or obtained by a federal agency and in its possession at the time of the request.

A cornerstone of FOIA is its broad accessibility: “any person” can make a FOIA request. This includes U.S. citizens, foreign nationals, organizations, associations, and universities, reflecting the law’s intent to make government information widely available.

The process involves an individual or entity submitting a request that “reasonably describes such records” to the relevant federal agency. Agencies are then obligated to make these records “promptly available” unless the information falls under one of nine specific exemptions to disclosure. Crucially, the burden of proof lies with the agency to justify any decision to withhold information.

Agencies are generally required to respond to a FOIA request within 20 working days, although extensions can occur in certain circumstances.

FOIA Exemptions: When Information Can Be Withheld

While FOIA champions disclosure, it also recognizes the need to protect certain legitimate governmental and private interests. This balance is achieved through nine exemptions, which permit (but often do not require) agencies to withhold specific categories of information:

Exemption 1: Information properly classified in the interest of national defense or foreign policy.

Exemption 2: Information related solely to an agency’s internal personnel rules and practices.

Exemption 3: Information prohibited from disclosure by another federal statute.

Exemption 4: Trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information.

Exemption 5: Inter-agency or intra-agency memoranda or letters that would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency (often covering deliberative process, attorney-client, and attorney work-product privileges).

Exemption 6: Personnel and medical files and similar files, the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Exemption 7: Records or information compiled for law enforcement purposes, under certain conditions (e.g., if disclosure could interfere with enforcement proceedings, deprive a person of a fair trial, constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, disclose a confidential source, disclose law enforcement techniques, or endanger someone’s life or safety).

Exemption 8: Information concerning the regulation or supervision of financial institutions.

Exemption 9: Geological and geophysical information and data, including maps, concerning wells.

Many of these exemptions are discretionary, meaning an agency can choose to release information even if it technically falls under an exemption, unless disclosure is prohibited by another law. Furthermore, the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016 codified a “foreseeable harm” standard, directing agencies to withhold information only if they reasonably foresee that disclosure would harm an interest protected by an exemption.

This standard reinforces the idea that exemptions are not blanket authorizations to withhold; agencies must assess the actual potential for harm.

Types of Public Records Available

Public records are official documents, whether in physical or digital form, that are created or maintained by government agencies and are, by law, accessible to the public upon request. In the digital age, this includes electronic communications such as emails and text messages, provided their content pertains to government business, regardless of the device or account used for their transmission.

The range of public information is vast, covering nearly every facet of government operation:

Legislative Records: Congressional session minutes, proposed bills and resolutions, and reports from legislative committees.

Administrative Records: Executive orders issued by the President, internal policy directives, guidelines for regulatory enforcement, government operating manuals, agency annual reports, government-funded research studies, and various statistical publications.

Financial Records: Federal, state, and local budgets; reports on government expenditures; information on public employee salaries; and details of payments made to government vendors. Many of these are accessible through dedicated portals such as USAspending.gov.

Judicial Records: Court decisions, legal opinions, and case files. Access to federal court records is also strongly supported by a common-law right of access, distinct from FOIA, which primarily governs executive branch agencies.

Law Enforcement Records: Subject to privacy and investigative exemptions, certain law enforcement records can be public. These may include redacted incident reports, arrest records, anonymized 911 call transcripts, and, depending on state and local laws, body camera footage.

Vital Records: Records of significant life events, typically managed at the state and local levels, such as birth certificates, death certificates, marriage licenses, and divorce decrees.

Property Records: Information regarding real estate, often maintained by local government offices, includes records of property transactions, ownership deeds, and property tax assessments.

How to Access Public Information

Accessing public information can be achieved through several avenues, ranging from browsing proactively published online resources to formally requesting specific documents.

Government Portals and Online Resources

Recognizing the public’s interest and the efficiency of digital dissemination, many government agencies now proactively publish information on their websites. Several key federal portals serve as central hubs:

Making a FOIA Request

If the information sought is not readily available online, a FOIA request is the next step. To make an effective FOIA request:

Identify the correct agency: The request must be directed to the federal agency likely to possess the records. FOIA.gov can help identify agency FOIA contacts.

Clearly describe the records sought: The request must “reasonably describe” the records. Being specific, using keywords, providing dates, titles, and relevant case numbers if known, can significantly aid the agency in locating the documents.

Submit the request: Follow the agency’s specific procedures for submitting FOIA requests, which are often detailed on their websites. Many agencies accept requests via online portals, email, or traditional mail.

State and Local Records

FOIA applies specifically to federal executive branch agencies. Each state has its own public records laws (often called Open Records Acts, Sunshine Laws, or Public Records Acts) that govern access to information held by state and local government entities. Citizens seeking such information must consult the laws and procedures applicable in their specific state or locality.

Third-Party Resources

In addition to official government portals, numerous non-governmental organizations and websites work to make government information more accessible. Sites like USAFacts.org and ThePolicyCircle.org aim to aggregate, analyze, and present government data in user-friendly formats, complementing official sources and often providing valuable context.

Why Public Information Matters

Access to public information is not an abstract ideal—it is a practical necessity for a functioning democracy and an empowered citizenry. The benefits are manifold:

Accountability and Transparency: The most fundamental benefit is the ability of citizens to scrutinize the actions, decisions, and expenditures of their government. This transparency acts as a powerful deterrent against corruption and inefficiency, holding elected and appointed officials accountable for their performance. As Justice Louis Brandeis famously remarked, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”

Informed Decision-Making: Public information empowers citizens to make well-informed decisions about policies and issues that directly affect their lives, such as local environmental concerns, public health initiatives, or urban development projects. An informed populace can participate more effectively in the democratic process, from voting to engaging in policy debates.

Empowerment and Advocacy: Armed with facts and data obtained from public records, individuals and organizations can more effectively advocate for social and political change, challenge misinformation, and protect their rights. For example, the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) successfully used FOIA-obtained documents to campaign for changes to TSA body scanning procedures, enhancing privacy protections.

Reducing Corruption: Transparency in government operations, particularly in financial matters and procurement, is a critical tool in combating corruption. Access to information allows for the detection and exposure of illicit activities.

Trust in Government: While not a panacea, a government that operates openly and provides access to its records is more likely to foster trust among its citizens. When people can understand how decisions are made and how their tax dollars are spent, it can lead to greater confidence in public institutions.

The impact of public information extends beyond these broad democratic principles to tangible improvements in public services and individual well-being. Citizens can use government data to understand and advocate for better healthcare, improved educational outcomes, enhanced environmental protection, and safer consumer products.

Understanding Classified Information: Protecting National Security

While public information is characterized by its accessibility, classified information is defined by the imperative to protect it from unauthorized disclosure to safeguard national security. This system of secrecy is a critical, albeit often controversial, aspect of modern governance.

What Makes Information Classified

“Classified national security information” (CNSI) refers to information that has been officially determined by the U.S. Government, pursuant to an Executive Order (currently Executive Order 13526), to require protection against unauthorized disclosure because such disclosure could damage national security. This information must be owned by, produced by or for, or under the control of the U.S. Government, and it is typically marked to indicate its classified status when in documentary form.

The core distinction from public information is stark: public information is intended for disclosure, whereas classified information is defined by its need for stringent protection. However, this protection is not meant to be absolute or arbitrary.

A crucial tenet of the U.S. classification system is that information may not be classified merely to:

• Conceal violations of law, inefficiency, or administrative error
• Prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency
• Restrain competition
• Prevent or delay the release of information that does not require protection in the interest of national security

These prohibitions are vital safeguards against the potential abuse of the classification system. They underscore the principle that secrecy should serve legitimate national security needs, not shield governmental shortcomings or misconduct.

The Legal Framework: Executive Order 13526

The primary legal authority governing the classification, safeguarding, and declassification of national security information in the U.S. is Executive Order 13526, “Classified National Security Information.” Issued by President Barack Obama on December 29, 2009, it became fully effective in June 2010, revoking and replacing earlier executive orders on the subject.

E.O. 13526 prescribes a uniform system across the executive branch and is built on several core principles:

Balancing Protection and Public Interest: The order explicitly acknowledges the need to balance the protection of information critical to national security with the democratic principle that the American people should be informed about the activities of their government.

Minimizing Classification: It aims to keep the amount of classified information and the duration of its classification to a minimum necessary to protect national security.

Clear Standards: It establishes specific standards for what information can be classified, who has the authority to classify it, and the different levels of classification.

Safeguarding Mandates: The order mandates rigorous procedures for handling, storing, transmitting, and destroying classified information to prevent unauthorized access.

Declassification Processes: It outlines detailed processes for the declassification of information, including automatic declassification schedules and review mechanisms.

Under this framework, each federal agency that originates or handles classified information is responsible for establishing and maintaining controls to ensure its proper protection.

Overseeing this complex system is the Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO), an entity within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA). ISOO is charged with policy direction and oversight of the government-wide security classification system and monitors agency compliance with E.O. 13526.

Classification Levels: Gauging Potential Harm

E.O. 13526 establishes three distinct levels of classification, each corresponding to the degree of damage to national security that could reasonably be expected from unauthorized disclosure. This hierarchical system allows for tailored protection measures commensurate with the sensitivity of the information.

Documents and other materials containing classified information must be clearly marked with their classification level, the identity of the classifying authority, the agency of origin, and declassification instructions. Individual paragraphs, titles, and captions within a classified document are also marked to indicate their specific classification level (e.g., (U) for Unclassified, (C) for Confidential, (S) for Secret, (TS) for Top Secret), with the overall classification of the document being determined by its most highly classified portion.

Beyond these three primary levels, some highly sensitive information, often at the Top Secret level, may be subject to additional controls known as “compartmented information.” This includes Sensitive Compartmented Information (SCI), which often relates to intelligence sources and methods and is handled in secure facilities called SCIFs (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facilities), and Special Access Programs (SAPs), which impose stringent access restrictions even on individuals who possess the requisite security clearance but lack a specific “need-to-know.”

Who Can Classify Information

The initial decision to classify information—known as “original classification”—is a significant responsibility vested in a limited number of U.S. Government officials designated as Original Classification Authorities (OCAs). This authority is not widespread and is tightly controlled.

OCAs include:

• The President and the Vice President
• Heads of executive branch agencies and officials designated by the President in the Federal Register
• Other U.S. Government officials to whom OCA authority has been specifically delegated in writing by the President or designated agency heads

For example, within the Department of Commerce, only three officials hold OCA designation (the Secretary, the Department’s Director for Security, and the Deputy Under Secretary for the Bureau of Industry and Security), and none of them are authorized to originally classify information as Top Secret; their authority is limited to the Secret and Confidential levels.

OCAs are responsible for determining whether information requires classification, assigning the appropriate classification level, and establishing the duration for which the information must remain classified. They are required to receive training in proper classification procedures, including the avoidance of over-classification, at least once a calendar year.

It is important to distinguish original classification from “derivative classification.” The vast majority of classified documents are created through derivative classification. This occurs when information is incorporated, paraphrased, restated, or generated in a new form from existing, properly classified source material or from a security classification guide. Individuals who perform derivative classification do not need to be OCAs, but they must be trained in derivative classification principles and are responsible for carrying forward the classification markings and instructions from the source material.

Legitimate Reasons for Classification

The fundamental principle guiding classification is that information should only be classified if its unauthorized disclosure could reasonably be expected to cause identifiable or describable damage to the national security of the United States. E.O. 13526, Section 1.4, outlines specific categories of information that may be considered for classification if they meet this harm threshold:

• Military plans, weapons systems, or operations
• Foreign government information (information provided in confidence by, or to, foreign governments, international organizations, or their agents)
• Intelligence activities (including covert action), intelligence sources or methods, or cryptology
• Foreign relations or foreign activities of the United States, including confidential sources
• Scientific, technological, or economic matters relating to the national security
• United States Government programs for safeguarding nuclear materials or facilities
• Vulnerabilities or capabilities of systems, installations, infrastructures, projects, plans, or protection services relating to the national security
• The development, production, or use of weapons of mass destruction

E.O. 13526 places a stronger emphasis on minimizing classification and includes clear prohibitions against classifying information to conceal errors, prevent embarrassment, or for other improper purposes. This suggests a move towards a more considered and justifiable approach to classification.

The categories for classification are inherently broad, granting significant discretion to OCAs. The effectiveness and integrity of the classification system hinge on these officials judiciously applying the criteria, genuinely assessing the potential for “identifiable or describable damage,” and resisting any temptation to classify information out of an overabundance of caution or for reasons unrelated to legitimate national security concerns.

Safeguarding Classified Information

Once information is classified, E.O. 13526 mandates stringent measures to protect it from unauthorized access, use, disclosure, alteration, or destruction. These safeguarding requirements are comprehensive and cover the entire lifecycle of classified information.

Key safeguarding measures include:

Physical Security: Classified materials must be stored in GSA-approved security containers, vaults, or secure rooms (like SCIFs for Top Secret and SCI material) when not in use by an authorized person.

Access Controls: Access to classified information is strictly limited to individuals who possess an appropriate security clearance, have signed a non-disclosure agreement, and have a demonstrated “need-to-know” the specific information for their official duties.

Handling Procedures: There are detailed procedures for marking, reproducing, accounting for, and destroying classified documents and materials.

Transmission Security: When classified information must be transmitted outside of secure facilities, it requires specific protective measures, such as being enclosed in double, opaque envelopes and often transported by authorized couriers who must maintain constant control.

Information Systems Security: Automated information systems that process, store, or transmit classified information must meet rigorous security standards to prevent unauthorized access and ensure data integrity.

Any individual who becomes aware of a loss, possible compromise, or unauthorized disclosure of classified information is required to report the incident immediately to the appropriate security officials within their agency. Agencies are then obligated to conduct an inquiry or investigation to assess the damage to national security and determine appropriate corrective actions.

Consequences of Unauthorized Disclosure

The unauthorized disclosure, removal, or improper retention of classified information can lead to severe consequences, ranging from administrative sanctions to criminal prosecution.

Administrative Sanctions

For U.S. government employees, members of the military, and contractors, mishandling classified information can result in:

• Formal reprimand
• Suspension from duty without pay
• Loss or denial of security clearance
• Reassignment to a non-sensitive position
• Termination of employment or contract
• Debarment from future federal employment or contracts

Criminal Penalties

Several federal statutes impose criminal penalties for the unauthorized handling of classified or national defense information. Key statutes include:

The Espionage Act (various sections of Title 18, U.S. Code):

• 18 U.S.C. § 793 (Gathering, transmitting, or losing defense information): Criminalizes willfully communicating, delivering, or transmitting national defense information to an unauthorized person, or through gross negligence permitting its removal, loss, theft, or destruction. Penalties can include fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.
• 18 U.S.C. § 794 (Gathering or delivering defense information to aid foreign government): The classic “spying” statute. Prohibits communicating, delivering, or transmitting national defense information to a foreign government or its agents with the intent or reason to believe it will be used to injure the U.S. or aid a foreign nation. Penalties are severe, including imprisonment for any term of years or for life, and in certain circumstances (e.g., during wartime), the death penalty.
• 18 U.S.C. § 798 (Disclosure of classified information): Specifically targets the knowing and willful communication, furnishing, transmission, or publication of classified information concerning cryptographic systems, communication intelligence activities, or information obtained from communication intelligence to an unauthorized person. Penalties include fines and/or imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Other relevant statutes:

• 18 U.S.C. § 1924 (Unauthorized removal and retention of classified documents or materials): Makes it a crime for an officer, employee, contractor, or consultant of the U.S. who comes into possession of classified documents or materials by virtue of their position to knowingly remove such items without authority and with the intent to retain them at an unauthorized location. Penalties include fines and/or imprisonment for up to five years.
• 18 U.S.C. § 641 (Public money, property or records): This general theft statute prohibits the theft or conversion of any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States. Classified documents can be considered government property under this statute.

The severity of these potential penalties underscores the U.S. government’s commitment to protecting classified information. It is also important to recognize the legal distinctions regarding intent. For example, a conviction under 18 U.S.C. § 798 typically requires proof of “knowing and willful” disclosure, whereas other provisions, like parts of § 793, may address actions taken with “gross negligence.”

The Bright Line and the Gray Areas

The distinction between public information, presumed open, and classified information, presumed secret, is fundamental to how the U.S. government operates. However, navigating this divide involves inherent tensions and complex decision-making processes, creating “gray areas” where the lines can appear blurred.

The Presumption of Openness vs. The Need for Secrecy

At the heart of this dynamic lies a core tension. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) operates on a strong presumption of disclosure: government records are to be made available to the public unless they fall under specific, enumerated exemptions. The U.S. Supreme Court has reinforced this by stating that FOIA’s purpose is to illuminate how agencies perform their statutory duties.

Conversely, the classification system is built on the premise that certain information must be protected from disclosure due to the potential harm its release could cause to national security. This system acknowledges that, in a world with genuine threats, some level of government secrecy is necessary to protect the nation and its interests.

This juxtaposition creates an inherent and ongoing tension between the public’s right to know and the government’s responsibility to protect sensitive information. This tension is not necessarily a flaw but rather an intrinsic characteristic of democratic governance in a complex global environment.

How Decisions are Made

When a citizen requests information through FOIA, or when an agency considers proactive disclosure, the decision of whether to release or withhold often hinges on established frameworks.

If information has been properly classified pursuant to an Executive Order (currently E.O. 13526), it is generally protected from release under FOIA Exemption 1, which specifically covers classified national security information. This is one of the clearest intersections between the two systems.

However, even if information is not classified, other FOIA exemptions might apply. For example, Exemption 3 protects information specifically exempted from disclosure by other federal statutes; Exemption 4 protects trade secrets and confidential business information; Exemption 6 protects information that would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy; and Exemption 7 protects certain categories of law enforcement records.

A significant development in applying these exemptions is the “foreseeable harm” standard, reinforced by the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. This standard dictates that agencies should only withhold information if they reasonably foresee that its disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the nine exemptions, or if disclosure is otherwise prohibited by law.

On the classification side, Original Classification Authorities (OCAs) make the initial determination to classify information based on the criteria set forth in E.O. 13526, primarily focusing on the potential damage to national security.

A critical “gray area” emerges from the problem of “over-classification.” This refers to the tendency within government to classify information that does not genuinely require protection, or to assign a higher level of classification than is warranted. Over-classification can occur for various reasons, including an abundance of caution, a lack of clear guidance, or, in some instances, attempts to avoid scrutiny (though this is explicitly prohibited).

The Declassification Process

Recognizing that the need for secrecy is often not permanent, E.O. 13526 establishes a comprehensive system for the declassification of information. The overarching goal is that information should be declassified as soon as it no longer meets the standards for classification under the Executive Order.

Several mechanisms facilitate this process:

Automatic Declassification: This is a cornerstone of modern declassification policy. Under E.O. 13526, classified records determined to have permanent historical value are, with certain exceptions, automatically declassified on December 31 of the year that is 25 years from their date of origin, regardless of whether they have been individually reviewed. Agencies can seek exemptions for specific information that still requires protection, potentially extending classification to 50 or, in rare cases, 75 years.

Systematic Declassification Review: Agencies that originate classified information are required to establish and conduct programs for the systematic review of their historically valuable classified records that have been exempted from automatic declassification.

Mandatory Declassification Review (MDR): Any U.S. citizen, permanent resident alien, federal agency, or state or local government can request that a specific classified document or piece of information be reviewed for declassification. If the request is properly formulated and describes the information with sufficient specificity, the originating agency must conduct a review and make a declassification determination.

Discretionary Declassification: The official who originally authorized classification (or their successor), a supervisory official with original classification authority, or other designated officials can declassify information at any time if they determine it no longer warrants protection. The President also has the authority to declassify any information.

Several key entities within the federal government play roles in the declassification process:

The National Declassification Center (NDC): Established by E.O. 13526 and housed within the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA), the NDC works to streamline declassification processes across agencies, coordinate interagency referrals of documents for review, facilitate quality assurance measures, and promote public access to declassified records. More information can be found at the National Archives declassification website.

The Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP): This panel is composed of senior-level representatives appointed by the President from various executive branch agencies. The ISCAP adjudicates appeals from individuals or agencies regarding classification challenges, agency decisions to exempt information from automatic declassification, and denials of MDR requests. Information on ISCAP is available at the ISCAP website.

The Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB): The PIDB is an advisory body established by Congress that makes recommendations to the President and other executive branch officials on policies and procedures for declassification. It also promotes the fullest possible public access to a thorough, accurate, and reliable documentary record of significant U.S. national security decisions and activities. Details can be found at the PIDB website.

Why the Distinction Matters

A clear, consistently applied, and justifiable distinction between public and classified information is not merely an administrative detail—it is fundamental to the health and functioning of a democratic society. The implications are profound:

Informed Public Discourse: For citizens to engage in meaningful debate about their government’s policies and actions, particularly in areas like foreign policy, defense, and intelligence, they need access to accurate information. While some information must legitimately remain secret for a time, excessive or arbitrary secrecy stifles informed public discourse and can lead to decisions made without adequate public understanding or consent.

Preventing Abuse of Power: Transparency is a powerful antidote to the abuse of power. When government operations are shrouded in unnecessary secrecy, it creates opportunities for misconduct, inefficiency, or even illegality to go unchecked. The public’s ability to access information serves as a crucial check on potential governmental overreach or wrongdoing.

Maintaining Trust: Public trust in government institutions can be significantly eroded by perceptions of excessive secrecy or the belief that information is being withheld for improper reasons. A transparent system, one that clearly justifies the withholding of specific information while making other information readily available, is more likely to foster public confidence.

Effective Oversight: Citizens, the media, academic researchers, and civil society organizations rely on access to public information and, eventually, declassified information to conduct effective oversight of government activities. This oversight function is essential for ensuring that the government remains accountable to the people it serves.

Protecting National Security Legitimately: A well-defined and properly implemented classification system is essential for protecting genuinely sensitive information that is vital for national security. However, a system characterized by widespread over-classification or the perception that secrecy is being used to hide mistakes can devalue the importance of truly secret material and lead to cynicism both within and outside government.

Your Role in Accessing Information and Ensuring Transparency

Citizens have both the right and the responsibility to seek information and advocate for transparency. The avenues for citizens to utilize public information are diverse and can lead to tangible impacts on their lives, communities, and the nation as a whole.

How Citizens Can Use Public Information

Holding Government Accountable:

Through FOIA requests, citizens, journalists, and watchdog groups can obtain agency communications, spending records, policy drafts, and other documents to understand decision-making processes and identify potential issues. For instance, American Oversight, a non-profit ethics watchdog, uses FOIA extensively to investigate actions of federal agencies like the State Department, seeking to expose details on matters of national importance.

Data from government portals like USAspending.gov allows individuals to track how federal tax dollars are being allocated and spent, fostering fiscal accountability.

Community Improvement and Advocacy:

Environmental data, accessible through FOIA requests to agencies like the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) or via platforms like Data.gov, can empower communities to address local pollution concerns, understand environmental impact assessments, and advocate for healthier environments.

Data.gov hosts a multitude of datasets that have been used for innovative projects, such as improving emergency response coordination, informing infrastructure management strategies, and analyzing the nutritional value of retail food sales. A notable example is how the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) shares its flight data, enabling private companies like FlightRadar24 and FlightAware to offer real-time public flight tracking services.

Civic technology platforms, such as those based on Open311 standards or apps like SeeClickFix, often leverage open government data to allow citizens to report local issues like potholes, broken streetlights, or graffiti, thereby directly participating in the improvement of their neighborhoods.

Informing Policy Debates and Participating in Rulemaking:

Regulations.gov is a critical platform where citizens can find, review, and, most importantly, comment on proposed federal rules and regulations. This provides a direct avenue for public participation in the policymaking process. By submitting substantive comments that cite specific concerns, offer evidence, or propose alternative solutions, citizens can influence the final shape of regulations that affect various aspects of life, from environmental protection to consumer safety.

Personal Use and Research:

Individuals can use FOIA and the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) to request their own records held by federal agencies, such as medical records from the Department of Veterans Affairs, immigration files from U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, or employment history with a federal agency.

Academic researchers, students, and historians frequently rely on FOIA and publicly available government archives for their scholarly work, contributing to a deeper understanding of government policies and historical events.

State and local public data websites often allow citizens to perform practical checks, such as verifying contractor licenses, looking up physician credentials, or finding information on local election candidates.

Consumer Advocacy:

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) maintains a public database of consumer complaints about financial products and services, which individuals can use to research companies and avoid potential problems.

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) Open Payments database allows the public to see payments and other transfers of value made by pharmaceutical and medical device companies to physicians and teaching hospitals, promoting transparency in healthcare.

Understanding Limitations and Respecting National Security

While advocating for transparency is vital, it is also important for citizens to understand that not all government information can, or should, be made public. Legitimate national security concerns, the need to protect individual privacy, the integrity of ongoing law enforcement investigations, and the confidentiality of certain deliberative processes are all valid reasons for withholding some information.

The goal of transparency advocacy should not be to compromise legitimate national security interests or other protected concerns, but rather to ensure that secrecy is:

• Justified: Based on a genuine and demonstrable need for protection, not on convenience or a desire to avoid scrutiny
• Limited: Narrowly tailored to protect only the specific information that requires secrecy, for only as long as necessary
• Subject to Oversight: Monitored by legislative bodies, inspectors general, and, where appropriate, the courts, to prevent abuse

It is particularly important to remember the explicit prohibitions in E.O. 13526 against classifying information to conceal violations of law, inefficiency, administrative error, or to prevent embarrassment. An informed citizenry can play a role in holding the government accountable to these principles.

Resources for Further Learning and Engagement

Navigating the world of government information can seem daunting, but numerous resources are available to help citizens understand their rights and access information.

Official U.S. Government Resources

FOIA.gov: The federal government’s central website for the Freedom of Information Act. It provides extensive information about FOIA, guidance on how to make requests, and links to agency FOIA offices.

Archives.gov: The website of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) is a gateway to historical records. Key sections include:

• National Declassification Center (NDC): For information on declassification efforts and access to recently declassified records
• Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP): For information on appealing classification decisions
• Public Interest Declassification Board (PIDB): For insights into declassification policy recommendations
• Information Security Oversight Office (ISOO): For policy directives and reports on the government’s security classification program

Data.gov: The primary portal for accessing publicly available, machine-readable datasets from various federal agencies.

Regulations.gov: The platform for finding, reviewing, and submitting public comments on proposed federal regulations and other agency actions.

USA.gov: The official web portal of the U.S. government, offering a broad entry point to government services and information.

GovInfo.gov: Operated by the Government Publishing Office (GPO), this site provides free public access to official publications from all three branches of the federal government, including the Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, and Congressional Record.

Non-Governmental Resources for Information and Advocacy

USAFacts.org: A non-partisan, not-for-profit civic initiative that provides a data-driven portrait of the American population, government finances, and the impact of government actions, using exclusively publicly available government data to inform public debate. They produce resources like an annual “America in Facts” report and a “Government 10-K,” and collaborate on programs like “Data Skills for Congress” to enhance data literacy among policymakers.

ThePolicyCircle.org: This organization focuses on empowering women to become more engaged in public policy discussions. It provides briefs and resources on various topics, including government transparency, accountability, and civic engagement, encouraging local community involvement and understanding of state and local budgets.

National Security Archive: An independent non-governmental research institute and library located at The George Washington University. It collects and publishes declassified U.S. government documents obtained through FOIA and provides extensive guidance on how to effectively use FOIA.

Government Accountability Office (GAO): An independent, non-partisan agency that works for Congress. The GAO audits federal spending and performance and publishes numerous reports on government operations, including issues related to transparency, FOIA implementation, and federal data quality.

Plain Language Resources

Plainlanguage.gov: This official government website provides guidelines and resources on writing in plain language. Understanding these principles can help citizens advocate for clearer, more accessible government communications.

Tips for Effective Engagement

Be Specific in Information Requests: When making FOIA or MDR requests, clearly and specifically describe the records you are seeking. Provide as much detail as possible, such as dates, names, and subject matter, to help the agency locate the information.

Understand the Different Avenues for Access: Recognize that different types of information may require different approaches (e.g., browsing Data.gov for datasets, using FOIA for specific agency records, commenting via Regulations.gov for proposed rules).

Support Transparency Organizations: Consider supporting non-profit organizations that work to promote government transparency and accountability through research, litigation, and advocacy.

Participate in Public Comment Periods: Make your voice heard by submitting thoughtful comments on proposed federal regulations that affect your interests or community.

By understanding the landscape of public and classified information and utilizing the available tools and resources, every citizen can contribute to a more transparent, accountable, and ultimately, a more democratic government. The health of American democracy is directly linked to how effectively it manages the delicate balance between transparency and necessary secrecy.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.