​The first reactions to a report issued last week by Department of Justice Inspector General Michael Horowitz centered on the man-bites-dog irony of the Justice Department having spied on the nominee to head the FBI, Kash Patel. The underlying story is far bigger and as significant as any other of recent surveillance scandals – Horowitz revealed that the government’s lawyers failed to inform a judge in the secret FISA Court that their applications for surveillance were to spy on Members of Congress and senior congressional aides on committees that oversee the Department of Justice.
 
It’s as if you asked a friend if you could borrow her car to go to the store but forget to tell her that the store is in Mexico. Justice Department prosecutors showed just about that level of mendacity in 2017 when they sought communications of Members of Congress, including then-House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), and Rep. Erik Swalwell (D-CA), 20 Democratic staffers, as well as Patel and 19 other Republican staffers.
 
The intent of the request was to reveal if there was cause-and-effect between their emails and journalists at The Washington Post, The New York Times, and CNN, who wrote stories in those outlets based on a classified leak of “Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmentalized” documents. As it turned out, no crimes or leaks were discovered. Horowitz reveals that DOJ obtained 40 Non-Disclosure Orders forcing communications providers to secretly provide the records of Members of Congress and staffers, with some of the search orders extended up to four years – even though the request involved leaks around the same time frame in 2017.
 
Horowitz concludes:
 

• “The Department’s decision to compel the production of non-content communications records of Members of Congress and congressional staffers implicated the constitutional rights and authorities of a co-equal branch of government ...

 

• The Justice Department’s actions “risks chilling Congress’s ability to conduct oversight of the executive branch because it exposes congressional officials to having their records reviewed by the Department solely for conducting Congress’s constitutionally authorized oversight duties and creating, at a minimum, the appearance of inappropriate interference by the executive branch in legitimate oversight activity by the legislative branch.”

 
The Justice Department’s policy did not, at that time, have an internal policy governing the compelled acquisition of congressional communication records from third-parties. Perhaps feeling the heat from outraged Members of Congress, Justice established the requirement in future applications to inform the Justice Department’s Public Integrity Section and a U.S. attorney before surveilling Members of Congress and their staffers in this way. Horowitz found that process insufficient, calling on a new policy that requires the informing of the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General.
 
Concerning the surveillance of journalists, Horowitz found that the Justice Department did not comply with all of its internal provisions. For example, a committee dedicated to applications for media surveillance was not convened, as required by Justice Department policy. That policy also required informing the Director of National Intelligence, which the Justice Department did not do in at least one instance.
 
PPSA believes the intelligence agencies are surveilling Congress in many other ways. That is why we have sued not just the Department of Justice, but also the NSA, the FBI, the CIA, and the State Department to learn if these agencies are surveilling current and former Members of Congress with oversight responsibilities over those very agencies.
 
If the intelligence community is surveilling Members of Congress on the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, then it is a case of the overseen overseeing the overseers. This danger is made much worse by House policies, where relatively few House staffers have security clearances that would allow them to help their bosses keep the intelligence agencies in check.
 
We hope at a minimum that the House will widen staffer clearances, as the Senate has done, to assist in greater oversight of these agencies. We especially hope that incoming President Trump will have his people dig into the practice of surveilling Members of Congress and bring it to light.

​We’ve long chronicled the downward trajectory of EO 13526, President Barack Obama’s 2009 executive order that boldly sought to stem the tide of excessive government secrecy. President Obama imposed checks on the government by forbidding classification decisions that are made to prevent embarrassment to a person, organization, or agency, and by boosting the ability of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) to lead a declassification program.
 
“My administration is committed to operating with an unprecedented level of openness,” the president declared. At the time President Obama swept his pen over this order, there were 55 million classified documents. And how has that worked out? Today 75 million classified documents have piled up. Some of them date back to the Truman administration.
 
A report released Tuesday by the National Coalition for History makes public the inside grips of NARA in trying to fulfill its mission. The report states that NARA’s flatlined budget leaves its National Declassification Center (NDC) short-staffed and unable to cope with thousands of pending Freedom of Information Act requests. We filed one such FOIA of our own asking a slew of federal agencies in effect if “they’ve done anything to comply with President Obama’s executive order?” Some FOIAs, the History Coalition reports, sit in 12-year queues.
 
But the bigger problems for declassification involve perverse incentives.
 
The History Coalition reports: “Even highly skilled and experienced NDC staffers lack the authority to reverse agency decisions that they disagree with, a dynamic that perpetuates the over-classification problem.”
 
No one ever got fired for refusing to declassify something. No one should be surprised, then, that when you ask the agency that classified a document if it should remain classified, the answer will almost always be “yes.” Another revelation from the History Coalition’s report is that the NDC lacks a secure electronic transmittal system to send classified records for agency referrals. Instead, they are sent on digitized diskettes through regular U.S. mail.
 
You would think that if a document is so sensitive it must remain secret that sending it back with a postage stamp would be a non-starter. That laxity, more than anything, is a sure sign that what is at work isn’t the protection of vital national secrets, but bureaucratic backside covering, the only perpetual motion machine known to physics.
 
What can be done? A good place to start is the History Coalition’s reform proposal to vest the NDC “with the authority to declassify information subject to automatic declassification without having to refer the records back to the originating agency.”
 
Sounds like a good idea to us.

​Earlier this week, PPSA asked the D.C. Circuit court to require federal agencies to follow FOIA’s most basic requirement: conduct a search for records. Although that should be simple enough, agencies have been excusing themselves of that obligation at an alarming rate, and PPSA has asked the court to rein in this practice.   
 
PPSA’s request this week for an en banc hearing follows up on a FOIA request PPSA submitted in 2020 to six agencies – the Department of Justice and the FBI, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Agency, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the Department of State. PPSA sought records from these agencies about the possible surveillance of 48 Members of Congress who serve or served on intelligence oversight committees.
 
The request specifically concerns two intelligence practices under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).
 
One such practice is “unmasking,” which results in the naming of Americans caught up in foreign surveillance in U.S. intelligence summaries. The other practice is “upstreaming,” the use of a person’s name as a search term in a database. Targets include prominent current and former House and Senate Members, including Sen. Marco Rubio, Rep. Mike Turner, Rep. Adam Schiff, as well as now-Vice President Kamala Harris and former Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
 
“Their silence speaks volumes,” Gene Schaerr, PPSA general counsel said at the time. “They clearly do not want to answer our requests.”
 
Last year, the district court invoked the judicially created Glomar doctrine, which allows agencies to neither confirm nor deny the existence of records relating to matters critical to national security. In doing so, the district court relied on the D.C. Circuit’s expansion of the Glomar doctrine in Wolf v. CIA (2007) and Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) v. NSA (2012), which allows agencies to refuse to confirm or deny the existence of records without even searching first to determine if any records might exist. In both instances, the federal court allowed the government to skip the search requirement in the text of the Freedom of Information Act.
 
PPSA is now petitioning the court to reconsider this ruling with an en banc hearing with the court.
 
“FOIA’s plain text requires federal agencies to search for responsive records before determining what information they may properly withhold, even in the Glomar context,” PPSA declares. “Wolf and EPIC are untenable in the face of intervening Supreme Court precedent, and they clash with at least three other circuits that, even in Glomar cases, reject deviating from the demands of FOIA’s plain text.”
 
In short, PPSA is alerting this federal court how far it has strayed from precedent and the law.
 
Glomar began as a judicial solution to protect the most sensitive secrets of the nation. In the original case, Glomar protected secrets involving the CIA’s raising of a sunken Soviet nuclear submarine. It has since been expanded to prevent the searching of records; an inherently absurd proposition given that agencies cannot even make a Glomar determination without looking. And Glomar is now reflexively used to plainly defy FOIA, a law that mandates searches.
 
PPSA will report on the court’s response.

​Judge Rudolph Contreras, of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, gave PPSA a victory in our quest to compel the FBI to search and possibly produce correspondence between Members of Congress and agencies about their “unmasking.”
 
More than one year ago, PPSA filed suit to follow up on a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request asking the FBI to produce documents about the potential unmasking or identification of individual members of Congress whose messages are caught up in intercepts of foreign communications. We specifically asked for correspondence between House Members and Senators with federal agencies regarding unmasking. We also asserted that since the Gates Procedures – the method by which congressional identities are handled and can be deanonymized – are in the public domain, the FBI cannot issue a Glomar response, which neither confirms nor denies the existence of such records.
 
Judge Contreras denied this broader motion, saying it wasn’t relevant to the core request about acquiring correspondence. But he found merit with the other request about correspondence.
 
The judge wrote: “But there exists a separate category of documents: communications between the FBI and Congress that are a degree removed from FISA-derived documents and which discuss congressional unmasking as a matter of legislative interest, policy, or oversight … The FBI must conduct a search for any ‘policy documents’ in its possession.”
 
FBI attorneys had argued that the core of our request was for “operational documents” concerning congressional unmasking. Judge Contreras rejected that contention, noting there are not necessarily any law enforcement procedures, techniques, or guidelines “that would risk circumvention of the law … because acknowledging the existence of congressional inquiries would not necessarily reveal anything about the FBI’s operations.” Such policy documents are “well within the four corners of the FOIA request.”
 
If the FBI follows it traditional path and issues a Glomar response anyway, PPSA will be there to press further litigation. And we will report any findings with alacrity.