The foundation of a strong democracy is an informed public. If the public does not have access to honest and complete information, they are muted. In doing so, they become passive observers instead of active participants in a legislative process that will determine their own future trajectory. This principle is tested most acutely when matters of national security arise, creating a tension between the government's perceived need for secrecy and the public's fundamental right to know. Personally, I believe we should all make transparency a priority because it’s the right thing to do. It is essential to the continued public faith and the ability to hold chronic abusers of power accountable.
OverTraders.com knows the importance of having easy access to all the verifiable data available before making financial market decisions. Just as traders need real-time information to make informed decisions, citizens need access to government activities to assess their leaders' performance and impact. The parallels are clear: in both arenas, knowledge is power.
The case for secrecy usually rests on the harm that would be caused by releasing sensitive information. Disclosure of intelligence sources and methods, military operations, or the details of sensitive diplomatic negotiations would threaten national security. It would put lives at risk, sabotage operations, and weaken national interests. These are all valid concerns, to be sure. Nobody is arguing for a blanket disclosure that would clearly endanger our nation. Once the “national security” label is invoked, it is applied with far too much ease. This frequently insulates bad actions from accountability, even when those actions are nothing more than embarrassing or politically inconvenient.
I’ve experienced this intimately during my time in both the journalism profession and more specifically, the transportation journalism profession. Investigating these complicated stories, especially those with connections to government agencies, always quickly runs into walls of bureaucratic resistance. The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests are intended to allow the public to acquire government documents. These requests are usually met with months to years of delays, extreme redactions, or denials. The reasons given are often vague and unsubstantiated, leaving one to wonder what exactly is being protected: genuine national security or the reputations of those in power.
The Global Principles on National Security and the Right to Information offer a valuable framework for navigating this complex terrain. These principles emphasize that any restriction on access to information must be strictly necessary and proportionate to the legitimate aim pursued. Under the Freedom of Information Act, the government is required to articulate with particularity how disclosure would cause a specific identifiable harm. Second, the limits imposed must be no broader than required to avoid that harm.
Picture how the National Security Agency (NSA) works, or not. We all know that the work of the NSA is fundamental to protecting America’s national security. At the same time, it does so under a veil of secrecy that is often difficult to penetrate. The agency has a long history of covering up information by using exemptions in FOIA. They uniquely employ exemption (b)(1) for national security information and exemption (b)(3) for information protected by statute. Let’s be clear, both of these exemptions are useful and valid. Their broad, contradictory use can make it impossible for the public to understand or comprehend the threat and extent of the NSA’s actions.
It's important to acknowledge the Privacy Act, which aims to protect individuals' personal information from government overreach. This action often runs afoul of the public’s right to know. This is particularly the case when government decision-making harms a broad swath of individuals. Striking the right balance between privacy and transparency requires careful consideration and a commitment to open dialogue.
One example I specifically remember was when I was trying to shine a light on possible overreach by a government agency in its surveillance practices. My subsequent FOIA request for internal memos and policy documents was almost completely denied, claiming national security exemptions. I continued to go hard on the stovepiping and the deep-rooting and the sowing of sources. In doing so, I found that the agency was acting far beyond its legal authority and surveilling law-abiding citizens. The public was kept in the dark about this possible misuse of power. They couldn’t independently confirm the agency’s claims themselves.
That argument—that the public cannot be trusted with sensitive information—is fundamentally undemocratic. It assumes that government officials are better equipped to determine what is in the public's best interest than the public itself. This paternalistic mindset neglects the reality that a well-informed and educated citizenry is what’s necessary to keep those in power accountable. When the public isn’t allowed to know or access information, it installs the kind of veil conducive to corruption, abuse and unchecked authority.
Transparency improves our national security. Increasing transparency increases public trust and encourages meaningful public debate. This framework adds to the credibility of government actions and helps build wider political consensus behind national security policies. When the public sees the process as transparent and participatory, they are more likely to work with and support law enforcement and intelligence agencies.
The FOIA Requester Service Center is a central component in making communication smoother and more transparent between the public and federal government agencies. The power of this service lies in agencies’ willingness to respond quickly and transparently to requests. Instead, too frequently these requests are met with bureaucratic stonewalling and farcical dodges that serve to mock the intent of the law it was designed to promote.
The Deputy Director of Policy is the first denial authority and is empowered to disclose information even when an exemption applies. The NSA Deputy Director serves as the appeal authority and can decide to publicly disclose information. This discretion certainly is a valuable tool for promoting transparency, and it should be exercised judiciously and consistently.
Whether transparency is the best approach versus secrecy is actually a more complex question than one might expect. There are debatable national security concerns being freighted in that argument that should be rejected outright. Make transparency the first and primary policy. Do not restrict first in the absence of glaring and unequivocal necessity. The American public deserves transparency and clarity about government actions that are affecting their lives. Withholding information only protects those in power from scrutiny and accountability.
We have to keep in mind that sunlight is the best disinfectant. Let’s hold our government accountable for greater transparency. This will revive our democracy, reclaim our freedoms, and finally ensure that people with power have to answer for their misdeeds. The price of transparency is undoubtedly much less than the cost of secrecy being revealed.
