This article was adapted from “The Nuance,” the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press’s authoritative newsletter on legal and policy issues impacting the First Amendment. For over half a century, the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has served as the bedrock of American transparency. It is the primary tool by which the press, researchers, and ordinary citizens hold the federal government accountable. Yet, as of this year, the law stands at a precarious crossroads. A decade has passed since the last major congressional amendment to the statute, and experts argue that the law is not merely stagnating—it is suffering from a systemic breakdown that threatens the very transparency it was designed to protect. The State of the Act: A Decade of Stagnation Ten years ago, the federal government celebrated the passage of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016. Signed into law by President Barack Obama, the legislation was hailed as a landmark victory for open government. It introduced the “foreseeable harm” standard, a mechanism intended to curb the reflexive use of the law’s nine exemptions to withhold information. It also streamlined the process by establishing a consolidated online portal and mandating more proactive disclosures. However, the passage of time has revealed that these reforms were, at best, a temporary salve for a deeper, more structural wound. Today, the promise of the 2016 Act has been eclipsed by a culture of obstructionism and administrative decay. As federal agencies increasingly default to secrecy, the press and public find themselves trapped in a labyrinth of redactions, delays, and outright denials. Chronology of a Declining System To understand the current crisis, one must look at the trajectory of the past decade. Following the 2016 reforms, there was a brief period of optimism. However, the years that followed saw a slow but steady degradation in agency compliance. 2016–2019: The immediate post-reform era saw agencies struggle to adapt to the "foreseeable harm" standard, with many simply pivoting to different legal justifications to deny requests. 2020–2024: The onset of the global pandemic and subsequent shifts in administrative priorities saw a marked increase in processing times. Remote work transitions were cited as a hurdle, yet the backlog numbers continued to climb with no corresponding increase in technological investment. 2025–Present: The return of the Trump administration marked a shift from bureaucratic inertia to active hostility. Reports from early 2026 indicate a coordinated effort to dismantle FOIA infrastructure, including significant staffing cuts and, in at least one instance, an unprecedented attempt by the Department of Energy to mass-cancel pending records requests. Supporting Data: The Numbers Behind the Crisis The statistics provided by the federal government paint a grim picture of the current state of transparency. The figures for Fiscal Year (FY) 2025 are particularly damning, highlighting that the system is not just slow—it is fundamentally failing. The Denial Rate: In FY 2025, federal data revealed that more than 81% of substantively processed FOIA requests were either denied in part or in full. This represents a massive reliance on the law’s nine exemptions, often applied with little to no justification. Exploding Processing Times: The average processing time for “simple” requests has surged by nearly 73% since 2016, climbing from roughly 28 days to 48.5 days. For complex requests, the wait time is often measured in years, rendering the information obsolete by the time it is released. The Backlog Crisis: Perhaps the most staggering metric is the growth of the request backlog. In FY 2016, there were 115,080 pending requests across all agencies. By FY 2025, that number had skyrocketed to 339,671—a 195% increase that suggests the system is collapsing under its own weight. Official Responses and Administrative Obstacles The current administration has made no secret of its desire to streamline, and in some cases, suppress, the FOIA process. The Washington Post recently reported that federal agencies have reduced their FOIA-dedicated staff by 14%. This reduction is not merely a budgetary footnote; it is a tactical choice. By thinning the ranks of the professionals tasked with reviewing documents, agencies effectively create a "bottleneck" that delays the release of potentially sensitive or embarrassing information. Furthermore, the U.S. Department of Energy’s attempt to mass-cancel requests set a dangerous precedent. By treating public records requests as an administrative nuisance rather than a statutory right, the government is signaling a shift toward a policy of "maximum secrecy." A Roadmap for Reform: Expert Perspectives The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP) has long been at the forefront of this struggle. We turned to Adam Marshall, Director of National Litigation, and Gunita Singh, Staff Attorney, to identify a path forward. Their recommendations form a legislative wishlist that could, if implemented, restore the integrity of the FOIA process. 1. Implementing a Public Interest Balancing Test Currently, agencies often use exemptions to withhold information even when the public has a clear, compelling interest in the data. Marshall and Singh propose a “public interest balancing test.” This would require agencies and, ultimately, courts to weigh the public’s right to know against the government’s interest in secrecy. If the public interest outweighs the government’s desire for non-disclosure, the records would be released. This would mirror the spirit of the original 1966 law, which sought to maintain a "workable balance" between security and accountability. 2. Mandatory Penalties and Funding The current system lacks teeth. Without consequences for missing deadlines, agencies have no incentive to prioritize FOIA. The RCFP suggests that Congress mandate the payment of attorney’s fees for requesters whenever an agency fails to meet statutory deadlines. Furthermore, a significant infusion of federal funding is required—not just to hire more staff, but to modernize technology. In an era of AI-driven data retrieval, there is no excuse for the manual, archaic methods still used by many federal offices. 3. Strengthening Proactive Disclosure The most efficient way to reduce the backlog is to stop the requests before they happen. Congress should expand mandatory proactive disclosure requirements. Rather than waiting for a citizen to ask, agencies should be required to publish leadership calendars, lobbying logs, contractor details, and Inspector General reports as a matter of standard operating procedure. 4. Establishing a Specialized FOIA Court The current reliance on the federal district court system is a major barrier for journalists and transparency advocates. Litigation is expensive, time-consuming, and intimidating. A specialized FOIA court—modeled after bankruptcy or trade courts—could resolve disputes through an expedited process. Drawing inspiration from Ohio’s state-level model, such a court could handle disputes entirely on the papers, resolving cases in weeks rather than years. As Adam Marshall aptly puts it, "It’s not crazy." It is, in fact, a necessary evolution in a digital age. Implications for Democracy The implications of a failing FOIA system extend far beyond the newsroom. When journalists cannot access government records, the public is deprived of the ability to monitor the misuse of tax dollars, the health and safety risks posed by federal agencies, and the inner workings of the executive branch. A democracy cannot function in the dark. The current state of FOIA is not an inevitable outcome of bureaucracy; it is the result of policy choices that prioritize convenience and secrecy over the public’s right to know. As we look toward the future, the legislative agenda for FOIA reform must be a top priority for lawmakers who claim to value the principles of a free and transparent society. The time for incremental change has passed. We need a fundamental reimagining of how the government handles the records that belong to the people. Whether through a specialized court, mandatory penalties for delays, or a robust public interest test, the tools for reform exist. What remains to be seen is whether there is the political will to use them. Reporters Committee Intern Vivian Rong contributed research to this report. Post navigation Accountability Restored: How Legal Advocacy Secured Press Freedom in a Westchester School District
