from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2008, Issue No. 117
December 15, 2008

Secrecy News Blog:

Support Secrecy News:


A proposed new Department of Energy regulation would eliminate the so-called "public interest" balancing test that encourages DOE officials to release information under the Freedom of Information Act even when it is legally exempt from disclosure if doing so would serve the public interest.

"This proposed rule would remove the so-called 'extra balancing test'... which states: 'To the extent permitted by other laws, the DOE will make records available which it is authorized to withhold under [the FOIA] whenever it determines that such disclosure is in the public interest'," according to the December 9 proposal published in the Federal Register.

"This additional [public interest balancing] test requires DOE to make available records that could be withheld under the FOIA exemptions, if DOE determines that disclosure would be in the public interest. DOE is proposing to remove the extra balancing test, because it goes beyond the requirements of the FOIA, and imposes unnecessary administrative requirements on DOE."

It is true, by definition, that the balancing test in the existing DOE regulation "goes beyond the requirements of the FOIA," because it encourages disclosure of records the release of which is not legally required.

But in an apparent non-sequitur, DOE also said that "the extra balancing test does not alter the outcome of the decision to withhold information, as DOE already incorporates Department of Justice guidance in applying exemptions when determining whether or not to make a discretionary release of information."

The difficulty with that statement is that current Department of Justice guidance on discretionary release does not require explicit consideration of the public interest in disclosure of exempt information. To the contrary, it promotes withholding of exempt information and promises to defend agencies whenever they legally withhold such information.

In effect, the existing DOE regulation incorporates the 1993 FOIA policy enunciated by then-Attorney General Janet Reno (and long since abandoned by other agencies) which encouraged discretionary disclosures unless there was a "foreseeable harm" to a legitimate government interest. And the proposed new DOE revision reflects the 2001 FOIA policy of Attorney General John Ashcroft, who discouraged discretionary releases (though he did not prohibit them) and urged withholding of records whenever there was a "sound legal basis" for doing so. As noted in a November 19, 2001 Defense Department memo, under the Ashcroft FOIA policy "Discretionary disclosures are no longer encouraged."

It is interesting to observe that with the current DOE FOIA regulation in effect there has been a striking difference in FOIA implementation between the Department of Energy and other agencies.

Earlier this year, for example, President Bush ordered executive branch agencies to provide comments on the recommendations of the Public Interest Declassification Board for improving declassification practices. Requests under the Freedom of Information Act for copies of these comments were consistently denied by the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Department of Defense, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies. These agencies correctly noted that the comments were inter-agency deliberative materials that were exempt from disclosure under FOIA exemption (b)(5).

But one agency released its comments in full, despite the availability of an exemption: the Department of Energy. (See "Energy Dept is 'Committed' to Improving Declassification," Secrecy News, June 5). In other words, it appears that the public interest balancing test and the approach to FOIA that it represents do alter the outcome of the disclosure decision process at DOE.

In comments on the proposed regulation submitted by the Federation of American Scientists, we argued that "there is a widespread and well-founded expectation that the incoming Obama Administration will rescind the Ashcroft FOIA policy and define a more forthcoming disclosure policy. In light of that probable scenario, I would urge DOE to cancel its proposed revision of [the public interest balancing test], or else to suspend action on it for six months while the new Administration prepares new government-wide FOIA guidance."


The elite JASON defense science advisory panel dismissed claims that high frequency gravitational waves (HFGW) could pose any kind of national security threat.

In a study prepared for the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the JASONs concluded that "No foreign threat in HFGW is credible, including: communication by means of HFGW; object detection or imaging (by HFGW radar or tomography); vehicle propulsion by HFGW; or any other practical use of HFGW."

Gravitational waves were predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity and their existence has been indirectly confirmed by experiment. But up to now they have never been directly measured.

"Unfortunately, relativity and gravitation theory have, over the last century, been the subject of a great deal of pseudo-science, in addition to real science. Therefore, in evaluating ambitious claims about gravitational applications, one must consider the possibility that the claims are misguided and wrong," the JASONs advised. "There is no substitute for seeking expert scientific and technical opinion in such matters."

A copy of the new JASON report was obtained by Secrecy News. See "High Frequency Gravitational Waves," October 2008.


In a December 10 letter to President-elect Obama, Sen. Russ Feingold urged the next Administration to take a series of specific measures to strengthen the rule of law. Distilled from the record of a September 16 Senate Judiciary Committee hearing on the subject, the recommendations addressed four topics in particular: separation of powers, excessive government secrecy, detention and interrogation policy, and domestic surveillance.

The letter's recommendations on combating excessive government secrecy included brief reference to a proposal stressed by the Federation of American Scientists for a fundamental review of agency classification guides to eliminate obsolete or unnecessary classification instructions.

Establishing such a review may be even more important than revising the executive order on classification or rescinding the Ashcroft policy on FOIA, both desirable steps but which are only loosely coupled to daily secrecy decisions. By comparison, revising agency classification guides -- which specify what information shall be classified at what level -- and updating them to eliminate spurious secrecy requirements would have immediate favorable consequences for agency practice, particularly since many classification guides have not been reviewed for years. (See "Overcoming Overclassification," Secrecy News, September 16, 2008.)


Noteworthy new and updated reports from the Congressional Research Service obtained by Secrecy News include the following.

"Iran's Nuclear Program: Status," updated November 20, 2008.

"Iran: Ethnic and Religious Minorities," updated November 25, 2008.

"Iran: U.S. Concerns and Policy Responses," updated November 24, 2008.

"Presidential Libraries: The Federal System and Related Legislation," updated November 26, 2008.

"Nonmarital Childbearing: Trends, Reasons, and Public Policy Interventions," November 20, 2008.

"Border Searches of Laptop Computers and Other Electronic Storage Devices," updated November 17, 2008.


Secrecy News is available for free to all interested readers, but it is not free to produce. If you are deriving value from our reporting and from the access to publications that we provide, then please consider supporting this activity with a tax-deductible donation.

Donations may be made online here:

You may also send a check payable to the Federation of American Scientists, earmarked for Secrecy News, here:

Federal, military and postal employees can make contributions to FAS by selecting #11539 in the Combined Federal Campaign's national/international charity list. To earmark such a contribution for Secrecy News, please notify us so that we may allocate it properly.


Secrecy News is written by Steven Aftergood and published by the Federation of American Scientists.

The Secrecy News blog is at:

To SUBSCRIBE to Secrecy News, go to:


OR email your request to

Secrecy News is archived at:

SUPPORT Secrecy News with a donation here: