FOIA Lawsuits Against DHS, ICE, FBI and DoD: What We Found
The short answer
Status update, October 22, 2026. This post reports where our four FOIA lawsuits stand, publishes every record the agencies have released so far, and explains what each document is. We will keep enforcing these requests until the law is followed.
In March 2026, Biazzo Law's Government Oversight Program asked four federal agencies — the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the FBI and the Department of Defense — for their final, written rules on how they use force, enter homes, monitor social media and protests, use facial recognition, and justify military action. None of them made a determination within the 20 working days the law requires. We sued all four in April. Every record released so far arrived only after we filed suit.
Here is where things stand, roughly seven months later:
Agency | Requests | Released so far | Still missing |
DHS | 2 | 38 pages, all released in full | About 296 pages still out for internal consultation; nothing yet on protest monitoring; nothing dated after January 2025 |
ICE | 6 | 654 pages, heavily redacted | Two signed memos on home entry and arrests released with nearly all of their text withheld; nothing on people who observe or record enforcement |
FBI | 1 | 47 pages — a single 2023 policy, most of its operative text redacted | Nothing on protest activity, information-sharing, or anything after 2023 |
DoD | 3 | 1 page | Nothing on War Powers reports to Congress or the "imminent threat" standard for using force |
Beyond these four lawsuits, at least 12 more of our requests to the Justice Department, the Defense Department, ICE and Customs and Border Protection are past FOIA's deadline without a determination or a released page. One Justice Department office estimated it would take about 650 days. The full tracker is below.
The agencies did release real and useful material, and we explain it below. But the pattern raises a question bigger than any one lawsuit. Congress wrote the Freedom of Information Act to guarantee the public a right to see how its government works. When agencies lose staff, miss statutory deadlines and release records only under court pressure, that right exists on paper more than in practice.
We are not waiting for Congress. We will enforce these requests in court, through a fair, negotiated production agreement where one is possible and through motions practice and, if necessary, trial where it is not. But one law firm can enforce FOIA only one case at a time. These cases are a real-world example of what happens when Congress leaves enforcement of its own law to the requesters who can afford to sue. The Congress elected on November 3, 2026, can change that, whichever party controls it. Country over party. Patriot over partisan.
What did we ask for, and why?
We asked only for final rules — the policies, directives, training and legal guidance that tell federal officers what they may and may not do. We expressly excluded drafts and internal deliberations. These are the documents that define the legal limits on government power over ordinary Americans. Courts have long held that an agency may not keep a body of "secret law" that governs the public while hiding it from view (NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 1975).
Agency | Subject of the request | Why it matters |
DHS | Use of facial recognition technology since 2022 | Whether and how your face can be scanned and matched by federal systems |
DHS | Monitoring and collecting information on domestic protest activity since 2022 | First Amendment rights to speak and assemble |
ICE | Entering private homes, including without a judicial warrant, since 2023 (two requests) | Fourth Amendment protection of the home |
ICE | Interactions with people who observe or record enforcement operations since 2022 | The right to watch and record public officials |
ICE | Detaining and verifying people who say they are U.S. citizens since 2022 | Due process for citizens |
ICE | Use of force in public enforcement operations since 2023 | Chemical agents, less-lethal weapons and firearms |
ICE | "Operation Metro Surge" planning and execution since 2025 | The largest immigration enforcement operation DHS has announced |
FBI | Monitoring of and collecting information from social media, including protest activity, since 2022 | Online speech and association |
DoD | Investigations, discipline and retired-grade reductions for retired service members since 2018 | Whether retirees can be punished for later conduct, including speech |
DoD | How War Powers Resolution reports to Congress are prepared, since 2022 | Congress's constitutional role in decisions to use force |
DoD | Legal guidance on the "imminent threat" standard for using force, since 2022 | The legal basis for military action without congressional authorization |
Each request asked for a fee waiver because the records serve the public interest and Biazzo Law seeks no commercial benefit. Each also asked the agency to explain anything it withheld. These requests are part of a broader set of more than 20 FOIA requests the Program has filed across federal agencies.
What happened after we asked?
FOIA gives an agency 20 working days to decide whether it will comply with a request, with a possible 10-day extension in unusual circumstances (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)). No agency met that deadline. Before we sued, DHS and ICE had sent nothing at all, the FBI had sent only an acknowledgment letter, and the Defense Department had given only an estimated completion date. In their court answers, the agencies admitted that no records had been released when the suits were filed.
Date (2026) | Event |
Sept. 25 | ICE second interim release: 86 pages, released in part |
Sept. 1 | The Defense Department's own estimated completion date passes |
Aug. 28–31 | DHS second interim release (20 pages); ICE first interim release (568 pages); government files its first status report in the DHS/ICE case |
Aug. 16 | Defense Department first interim release: 1 page |
July 20 | DHS first interim release: 18 pages |
July 2 | At the government's unopposed request, the court pauses the DHS/ICE case while the agencies process records, with status reports every 60 days |
June 30 | FBI release: 47 pages, described as its "first and final" release |
May 21–28 | All four agencies file answers, each asserting that Biazzo Law is not entitled to attorney's fees |
Apr. 14–21 | Biazzo Law sues DHS and ICE, the Defense Department and the FBI in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida |
Apr. 10 | Biazzo Law sends DHS and ICE a written notice of FOIA violations and a final opportunity to respond before suit; no determination follows |
Mar. 30 | The FBI acknowledges receipt; no determination follows |
Mar. 13–17 | Requests submitted to and received by all four agencies |
That sequence matters legally. Under the OPEN Government Act of 2007, a requester can recover attorney's fees when a lawsuit is the catalyst for an agency's "voluntary or unilateral change in position" (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)(ii)). Congress added that provision precisely because agencies were releasing records after being sued and then arguing that the requester had not "won." All four cases remain pending, and Biazzo Law does not consider processing complete in any of them.
What has each agency released — and what is still missing?
Department of Homeland Security: 38 pages, all previously issued policy
What DHS reported. In its first interim response (July 20), DHS said it reviewed 1,008 pages. It released 18 in full, called 33 duplicates and 641 non-responsive, and sent 316 to other DHS offices or agencies for consultation. On August 28, it released 20 of those 316 pages in full. About 296 pages are still out for consultation.
What the documents are.
DHS Directive 026-11, Use of Face Recognition and Face Capture Technologies (September 2023), and Instruction 026-11-001, which implements it. These set department-wide rules: a face match may not be the sole basis for an enforcement action; U.S. citizens may opt out of face matching for non-law-enforcement uses such as identity checks; and DHS may not use the technology to target people for exercising constitutional rights or for indiscriminate, wide-scale surveillance. DHS published the directive in 2023, but reporting by Wired indicates it was removed from DHS's website within weeks of January 20, 2025. Its release here puts it back in public view, but does not tell the public whether it is still in force.
Secret Service Privacy Impact Assessment, USSS Use of Facial Recognition Technology (DHS/USSS/PIA-033, September 12, 2024). A privacy impact assessment is a public report federal law requires before an agency uses technology that collects personal information. This one explains how Secret Service investigators may compare images against federal, state and commercial databases.
What is missing. Every page released so far responds to the facial-recognition request. Nothing has been released on the protest-monitoring request. Nothing released is dated after January 2025.
ICE: 654 pages, heavily redacted
What ICE reported. In late August, ICE said it processed 1,376 pages, called 562 duplicates and 246 non-responsive, and released 568 in part. On September 25, it processed 139 more pages and released 86 in part.
What the documents are.
ICE Directive 19009.3, Firearms and Use of Force (May 2023). ICE's agency-wide rules on when officers may use force, including firearms. ICE published this directive in 2023, and it was released here largely without redaction.
Training lesson plans from ICE's Enforcement and Removal Operations Training Division, several labeled "(SURGE)" and dated as recently as August 2025. They cover pepper (OC) spray, expandable batons, conducted energy weapons such as Tasers, crowd control, de-escalation, and how officers determine whether a person is a U.S. citizen. Much of the operative instruction is redacted.
Legal training slides prepared by ICE's Office of the Principal Legal Advisor (OPLA) on civil immigration arrest authority, administrative arrest warrants, warrantless arrests, and the Laken Riley Act's detention requirements.
An "ERO St. Paul Surge" Operations Plan and related briefing materials (the September release). These appear to relate to the Minnesota enforcement operation DHS called Operation Metro Surge. Nearly every page is blacked out under Exemption 7(E).
What we observed.
Redactions that go well beyond the stated reasons. Both ICE release letters state that Exemption 7(E) "was used for outlook string codes belonging to personnel inboxes and two internal codes for deliveries." The released pages show 7(E) applied to entire pages, including most of the operations plan.
An exemption the letter did not list. The August letter lists Exemptions 6, 7(C), 7(E) and 7(F). By our count, roughly 140 of those 568 pages carry Exemption 5 markings, the exemption for internal deliberations and legal advice. The requests had expressly excluded drafts and deliberative material.
Nearly blank pages. By our count, nearly 190 of the 568 pages show little beyond a heading, page numbers and redaction codes.
Home entry. ICE released two signed memoranda addressed to all ICE personnel: "Utilizing Form I-205, Warrant of Removal" (May 12, 2025) and "Civil Immigration Arrest Authority: Administrative Arrest Warrants and Warrantless Arrests" (January 28, 2026). In both, nearly everything after the opening paragraph is withheld under Exemptions 5 and 7(E). The Associated Press reported in January 2026, based on a whistleblower complaint to Congress, that the May 2025 memo authorizes officers to force entry into a home on an administrative warrant signed by an immigration officer rather than a judge. DHS's Secretary later wrote that the practice was paused for review but the memo was not rescinded. Two training slides titled "REMINDER: 'Knock and Talk' Rules" are also withheld in full.
Observers and recording. No released page addresses people who observe or record enforcement operations, which two of our requests specifically sought.
FBI: one 2023 policy, most of it redacted
What the FBI released. On June 30, the FBI released 47 pages, which it described as its "first and final" release. They make up a single record: Appendix L of the FBI's Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), titled Investigative Methods Conducted Online by FBI Employees, dated August 23, 2023.
What the document is. The DIOG is the FBI's principal rulebook for domestic investigations. Appendix L governs what FBI employees may do online, including reviewing public posts and chat rooms, taking screenshots, and using online identities.
What we observed. The subsection whose title refers to social media is withheld in full, including part of its title. So are most definitions, examples and lists of prohibited activities. Every redaction carries the same code, Exemption 7(E). Several pages release little beyond headings. Nothing released addresses protest activity or information-sharing with social media companies, and nothing is dated after August 2023.
Department of Defense: one page
What DoD released. On August 16, the Department's Office of General Counsel released one page in response to the retired-service-member request: a March 30, 2023 memorandum from the Secretary of Defense delegating authority to reopen and lower the retired grade of officers. That authority came into public focus in January 2026, when the Department reportedly began proceedings to review the retired grade of Senator Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain.
What is missing. Nothing has been released on how War Powers Resolution reports to Congress are prepared, or on the legal "imminent threat" standard used to justify force, both subjects of urgent public importance during the Venezuela operation and the Iran war. In its answer, the Department admitted it had projected completing its processing by September 1, 2026. That date has passed.
Across all four agencies
No fee-waiver decisions. The FBI, DoD and ICE admitted in their answers that they had not ruled on the fee-waiver requests.
Fees contested. Every answer asserts that Biazzo Law is not entitled to attorney's fees.
Image-only files. The releases are scanned images that cannot be searched, although FOIA requires agencies to provide records in a readily reproducible format where available (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(3)(B)).
Read the records: a guide to every document released so far
We are publishing every page the agencies have released, exactly as they produced it. The guide below explains what each document is and how much of it the public can actually read. Page numbers are the agencies' Bates numbers; ICE page ranges are approximate.
Department of Homeland Security
Document | Date | Pages | What it is | How much is visible |
Directive 026-11, Use of Face Recognition and Face Capture Technologies | Sept. 11, 2023 | DHS 000001–000007 | Department-wide rules for facial recognition, including limits on using a match as the sole basis for action and on surveillance of constitutionally protected activity | Released in full |
Instruction 026-11-001, implementing the directive | Sept. 11, 2023 | DHS 000008–000018 | Who must approve each use, accuracy and bias testing, and required privacy and civil-rights reviews | Released in full |
Privacy Impact Assessment DHS/USSS/PIA-033, USSS Use of Facial Recognition Technology | Sept. 12, 2024 | DHS 000019–000038 | The Secret Service's public assessment of how it uses facial recognition in criminal investigations and which databases it searches | Released in full |
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (FOIA No. 2026-ICLI-00047)
Document | Date | Pages | What it is | How much is visible |
Directive 19009.3, Firearms and Use of Force | May 26, 2023 | 0001–0013 | ICE's governing use-of-force policy, replacing the 2021 version | Largely visible |
Memo, Civil Immigration Arrest Authority: Administrative Arrest Warrants and Warrantless Arrests | Jan. 28, 2026 | 0014–0018 | Signed directive to all ICE personnel on when officers may arrest with and without a warrant | Opening paragraph only; the rest withheld under Exemptions 5 and 7(E) |
Training lesson plans: conducted energy weapons, OC spray, batons, use of force, crowd control and arrests | 2020–Aug. 2025; several marked "(SURGE)" | about 0019–0176 and 0220–0284 | The force and arrest training ICE officers receive | Mostly withheld under Exemption 7(E) |
Federal Law Enforcement Training Centers lesson plan on communication with the public | Jan. 2024 | about 0177–0219 | Training on interacting with community members and de-escalation | Partly visible |
Lesson plan, Determining Citizenship (SURGE), with nationality law charts | Aug. 2025 | about 0285–0359 | How officers determine whether a person is a U.S. citizen, including citizenship derived through parents | Partly visible |
Memo, Consideration of U.S. Military Service During Civil Immigration Enforcement Actions | Apr. 2025 | 0360–0367 | Requires officers to ask about and document military service; rescinded a 2022 directive | Largely visible |
Memo, Utilizing Form I-205, Warrant of Removal | May 12, 2025 | 0368–0370 | Signed directive to all ICE personnel, publicly reported to authorize forced home entry on an administrative warrant | Opening paragraph, one heading and a disclaimer only; the rest withheld under Exemptions 5 and 7(E) |
Legal training slides by ICE attorneys, including Immigration Arrests and the Laken Riley Act and "Knock and Talk" rules | May 2025 and undated | about 0371–0568 | Training on arrest authority, warrants, removal and detention | Heavily withheld under Exemptions 5 and 7(E) |
ERO St. Paul Surge Operations Plan and briefing materials | 2025–2026 | 0569–0654 | Planning and briefing documents for the Minnesota operation | Nearly all withheld under Exemption 7(E) |
FBI and Department of Defense
Document | Date | Pages | What it is | How much is visible |
FBI, Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide, Appendix L, Investigative Methods Conducted Online by FBI Employees | Aug. 23, 2023 | FBI (26-cv-61165) 1–47 | The FBI's rules for online investigative activity, including social media | Most operative text withheld under Exemption 7(E) |
Secretary of Defense memo on reopening and changing officers' retired grades | Mar. 30, 2023 | DoW 000001 | Delegates authority to reopen and lower the retired grade of officers for good cause | Released; the letter describes the release as "in part" |
How do you read a FOIA release?
FOIA requires agencies to release records unless one of nine specific exemptions applies, and the agency bears the burden of justifying every redaction (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). The exemptions are to be read narrowly (Milner v. Department of the Navy, 2011). Since 2016, an agency may withhold information only if it reasonably foresees that releasing it would harm an interest an exemption protects, and it must release every reasonably segregable portion of a record (§ 552(a)(8), (b)).
These are the exemption codes that appear on the released pages:
Code | What it protects | Where it appears here |
(b)(5) | Internal deliberations, attorney-client communications and attorney work product | About 140 ICE pages, including two signed policy memos, legal training slides and the "Knock and Talk" slides |
(b)(6) | Personal privacy in personnel and similar files | Employee names and contact details |
(b)(7)(C) | Personal privacy in law enforcement records | Names of officers and other individuals |
(b)(7)(E) | Law enforcement techniques, procedures and guidelines, if disclosure could reasonably risk circumvention of the law | Most ICE and FBI redactions, including whole pages |
(b)(7)(F) | Information that could endanger someone's life or physical safety | ICE staffing and operational details |
Other terms you will see:
Interim release: a partial production while processing continues. It is not a final answer.
Non-responsive: pages the agency decided fall outside the request. Requesters cannot see these pages to check that judgment.
Consultation or referral: sending pages to another office or agency that has an interest in them before release. FOIA sets no separate clock for consultations, which is why pages can sit for months.
Bates number: the page-stamp number used to track every page in a production.
Vaughn index: a list, usually filed with a summary judgment motion, that identifies each withheld item and explains the exemption claimed. Named for Vaughn v. Rosen (D.C. Cir. 1973).
Constructive exhaustion: when an agency misses FOIA's deadline, the requester may go straight to court without an administrative appeal (§ 552(a)(6)(C)(i)).
Fee waiver: FOIA requires agencies to waive or reduce fees when disclosure is in the public interest and not primarily commercial (§ 552(a)(4)(A)(iii)).
A redaction is not proof of wrongdoing. Agencies have legitimate reasons to protect officer safety, personal privacy and genuinely sensitive techniques. But because the burden is on the agency, the public is entitled to an explanation specific enough for a court to test. A single code stamped across an entire page, with a cover letter describing something narrower, does not give one.
Is this happening only to us?
No. Independent reporting and the government's own data show that federal FOIA offices lost significant staff after January 2025, and backlogs grew. The National Archives' FOIA ombudsman reports that from fiscal 2024 to fiscal 2025, full-time FOIA staff at the 15 Cabinet departments and 10 independent agencies it tracks fell 16 percent, while their backlogs rose 27 percent. The agencies we sued are part of that picture:
Agency | Full-time FOIA staff, FY2024 → FY2025 | Backlogged requests, FY2024 → FY2025 |
Homeland Security | 787 → 548 (−30%) | 141,420 → 168,505 (+19%) |
Justice (includes FBI) | 446 → 413 (−7%) | 21,567 → 29,308 (+36%) |
Defense | 958 → 946 (−1%) | 21,436 → 30,476 (+42%) |
Source: OGIS 2026 Annual Report, Appendix B. Fiscal 2025 began in October 2024, so the comparison includes about four months before the current administration.
Key reporting:
The Washington Post (March 14, 2026) reviewed 339 active FOIA lawsuits and found that government lawyers for at least 13 agencies cited downsizing as the reason for missed deadlines in 26 cases. The agencies included DHS, ICE and the FBI. In one case, a request to the CDC drew an automatic reply: "the FOIA office has been placed on admin leave and is unable to respond to any emails."
Federal News Network (March 20, 2026) reported, from agencies' own annual FOIA reports, that the Defense Department cited a 37 percent loss or turnover of FOIA officers across its components as the "primary driver" of its rising backlog.
NPR (April 3, 2025) and KFF Health News (April 7, 2025) reported that public-records teams at the CDC, FDA and NIH were cut, some entirely. KFF later reported (May 2, 2025) that the FDA rehired some FOIA staff after operations largely stalled.
CNN (February 18, 2025) reported that the Office of Personnel Management let go privacy and FOIA staff. Reuters (March 7, 2025) reported the firing of the head of the Justice Department's Office of Information Policy, which oversees FOIA compliance government-wide.
The 74 (July 21, 2026) reported that one Education Department FOIA group went from eight employees to none, citing an inspector general review.
Courts have noticed. In March 2025, Judge Randolph Moss of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that FOIA's requirements "would be rendered meaningless if an agency could avoid these statutory obligations through the simple expedient of dismissing its FOIA staff" (Center to Advance Security in America v. USAID).
What the evidence does and does not show. The reporting documents real staffing losses and real delays. It does not establish a single, administration-wide intent to suppress oversight. Some losses came from retirements, attrition and contractor cuts, and agencies describe the changes as streamlining. Understaffing also predates this administration; a 2024 GAO report found agencies most often blamed staffing for their backlogs. Whether the cuts were designed to frustrate transparency or simply had that effect is exactly the kind of question Congress is equipped to investigate.
What about the requests we have not yet sued on?
Beyond the four lawsuits, at least 12 more of our requests filed in March and April 2026 are past FOIA's deadline without a determination or a single released page. In several, the agency told us in its first letter that it would likely miss the deadline.
Department of Justice
Office and number | What we asked for | Submitted | Status as of Oct. 22, 2026 |
Office of Legal Counsel, FY26-136 | Final legal opinions interpreting the President's emergency powers, since 2022 | Mar. 13 | Placed on the "complex" track. OLC's March 20 acknowledgment said it "likely will be unable to comply with the statutory deadline." On April 1, OLC said the records are "likely to be classified" and need outside consultation. No records; no fee-waiver decision |
Office of Legal Counsel, FY26-139 | Final legal opinions on the President's authority to start military action against a sovereign state without congressional authorization, since 2022 | Mar. 16 | Same as above |
Office of Legal Counsel, FY26-146 | Final legal opinions on accepting aircraft or other high-value assets from a foreign government, including under the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause | Mar. 24 | "Simple" track. OLC said it likely would miss the deadline. Expedited processing denied; denial affirmed on appeal April 10. No records |
Office of Legal Counsel, FY26-160 | Final legal opinions on the March 31, 2026 executive order on citizenship verification in federal elections | Apr. 6 | "Simple" track. OLC said it likely would miss the deadline. Expedited processing denied; appeal pending since May. No records |
Criminal Division, U.S. Attorneys' office and Office of Information Policy | Records on the investigation of Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and subpoenas to the Federal Reserve | Mar. 19 | Split among three offices and placed on the "complex" track. The Office of Information Policy estimated about 650 days, to December 2027. No records. Biazzo Law gave written notice of intent to sue on April 15 |
Department of Defense
Office and number | What we asked for | Submitted | Status as of Oct. 22, 2026 |
Office of the Secretary and Joint Staff, 26-F-1924 | Incident reports, rules of engagement and investigations for strikes on civilian vessels in the Caribbean and Pacific, since 2022 | Apr. 6 | Expedited processing granted April 10, with an estimated completion date of September 16, 2026. That date has passed. No records. The Department said part of the request must go separately to the Navy |
Department of Homeland Security, ICE and CBP
Agency | What we asked for | Submitted | Status as of Oct. 22, 2026 |
ICE | All records on Operation Midway Blitz (Chicago area, 2025): plans, communications, arrest data, legal guidance, after-action reports | Mar. 21; broadened Mar. 23 | No determination; no records |
ICE | All records on Operation Charlotte's Web (Charlotte, North Carolina, 2025) | Mar. 21 | No determination; no records |
ICE | All records on Operation Metro Surge (Minnesota, 2025–2026), beyond the policies sought in our lawsuit | Mar. 23 | No determination; no records |
CBP | All records on Operation Midway Blitz | Mar. 23 | No determination; no records |
CBP | All records on Operation Charlotte's Web | Mar. 23 | No determination; no records |
CBP | All records on Operation Metro Surge | Mar. 23 | No determination; no records |
DHS | Communications and contracts involving DHS contractors and an outside adviser | Apr. 6 | Final response May 20: records located and withheld in full under Exemption 7(A), for records whose release could interfere with enforcement proceedings |
What these requests show. Several of these offices told us at the outset that they would not meet the deadline Congress set. One component estimated nearly two years. Another granted expedited processing and still missed its own date. We are evaluating enforcement action, including litigation, on each of these requests.
How will we enforce these requests?
We are not waiting for Congress. FOIA gives every requester the right to go to federal court, and we will use every lawful tool it provides, as far as the facts require.
A fair, negotiated production agreement. We prefer to resolve these cases by agreement: firm dates for completing processing, supplemental searches where the record shows gaps, a description of how each agency searched, and re-processing of withholdings that go beyond what the law allows. Agreed schedules are common in FOIA cases, and they save time and taxpayer money.
Court-ordered deadlines. Where no agreement is reached, we will ask the court to set dates certain for completing processing and for the agencies' search declarations and Vaughn indexes.
Challenging searches and withholdings. At summary judgment, each agency must show its search was reasonably calculated to find all responsive records and must justify every redaction. Courts may review withheld records privately, in camera (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(B)). Exemption 5 protects deliberations before a decision; it is not designed to shield a signed directive issued to all personnel, and we will press that point.
Discovery, hearings or trial where warranted. If an agency's declarations cannot be credited, courts may permit discovery or hold an evidentiary hearing. We will pursue those steps when the record supports them.
Fees and costs. Every record released so far came after we filed suit. We will seek the attorney's fees and costs FOIA allows (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)), which exist to make enforcement possible for requesters who are not large institutions.
Accountability provisions. FOIA lets a court refer arbitrary or capricious withholding for disciplinary review (§ 552(a)(4)(F)) and punish noncompliance with its orders as contempt (§ 552(a)(4)(G)). These are reserved for serious cases, and we will ask for them only if the facts require it.
Our approach is professional and persistent. We will engage in good faith, respect the courts' schedules, and let the record speak. But we will see these requests through.
Why is this a separation-of-powers issue?
Because FOIA is a law Congress wrote and the Executive Branch is required to carry out. Article I gives Congress the power to make laws and fund the government. Article II requires the President to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed." When the Executive cannot or will not meet a statute's requirements, Congress's choices are weakened just as surely as if the law were repealed.
Congress has strengthened FOIA repeatedly, with bipartisan votes, each time in response to agencies that slowed or narrowed disclosure:
Year | Law | What Congress did |
2016 | FOIA Improvement Act | Required agencies to show foreseeable harm before withholding, and to release segregable information |
2007 | OPEN Government Act | Let requesters recover fees when a lawsuit causes an agency to change position; created the FOIA ombudsman (OGIS) |
1996 | Electronic FOIA Amendments | Extended FOIA to electronic records and lengthened the response deadline to 20 working days |
1974 | FOIA Amendments, enacted over President Ford's veto | Let courts review classified withholdings, added fee-shifting and created referrals for disciplinary review |
1966 | Freedom of Information Act | Gave every person a right to request federal records |
The structure only works if each branch does its part. Agencies must staff and fund the offices that answer requests. Courts must enforce the deadlines. And Congress must watch whether its law is being carried out. A right that requires a federal lawsuit to obtain even a first page is a right most Americans cannot afford to exercise.
This concern applies to every administration. Agencies under Presidents of both parties have missed FOIA deadlines and over-redacted records. What matters is whether the people's representatives insist that the law Congress passed is followed, regardless of who is in the White House.
What can a new Congress do after the 2026 midterms?
Courts enforce FOIA one lawsuit at a time. Congress can fix the system for everyone. Individual members have asked agencies about FOIA staffing since early 2025, but the staffing losses and growing backlogs documented above have continued. Until Congress acts, enforcement of its own law falls to the requesters who can afford to sue. The Congress sworn in on January 3, 2027 can change that, and many of its tools need no presidential signature. What the country needs, whichever party holds the majority, is a Congress that enforces the separation of powers.
Tool | What Congress can do | Needs a signed law? |
Oversight hearings | Call agency chief FOIA officers to testify under oath about staffing, backlogs and litigation releases | No |
Document requests and subpoenas | Obtain staffing records, layoff decisions and FOIA processing data directly | No |
GAO and inspector general reviews | Request audits of whether staffing cuts caused missed deadlines, and whether exemptions are applied consistently | No |
Congressional access to records | Committees can obtain records for oversight that FOIA exemptions may keep from the public | No |
Appropriations | Fund FOIA offices directly, or set minimum staffing for them in spending bills | Yes, usually in must-pass bills |
Enforcement reform | Strengthen penalties when agencies miss deadlines, and the provision letting courts refer arbitrary withholding for disciplinary review (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(F)) | Yes |
Proactive disclosure | Require agencies to post final policies on use of force, surveillance and enforcement without waiting for requests, as § 552(a)(2) already requires for staff manuals affecting the public | Yes |
Records preservation | Require agencies to preserve, and not remove from public websites, final policies that remain in force or were rescinded | Yes |
The limits a new Congress must respect
The veto. Any new law needs the President's signature or a two-thirds vote of both chambers, so lasting FOIA reform usually rides on bipartisan or must-pass legislation.
Legitimate secrecy. Some law enforcement techniques and national security information genuinely need protection. Good reform improves the explanation and testing of withholdings; it does not erase the exemptions.
Executive privilege and delay. Oversight demands can be resisted or slowed in court. That is a reason to start early.
What voters can ask
Whatever your party, ask every candidate: "Will you insist that federal agencies follow the Freedom of Information Act Congress passed, and fund the offices that answer the public's requests, no matter which party holds the White House?"
What should readers keep in mind for fairness?
An honest account includes what the agencies did right and the explanations they give:
Real records were released. DHS released all 38 of its pages without redaction. ICE released its use-of-force directive largely intact, along with substantial training material. Each is useful to the public, and we are publishing explanations of them.
Agencies cite workload. DHS and ICE told the court that "exceptional circumstances" require more time to process the requests, and the government asked the court to pause that case while it works. Large backlogs are real, and they predate this administration.
Some redactions are legitimate. Officers' names and contact details, and genuinely sensitive investigative techniques, can properly be protected. Our concern is with redactions that are broader than the explanation given for them.
The cases are not over. Agencies will have the opportunity to explain their searches and withholdings to the court, and courts, not litigants, will decide whether each withholding is justified.
Individual public servants are not the problem. Career FOIA professionals and the government lawyers who handle these cases work under the resources and policies they are given. The questions here are about institutions and priorities.
Why should every American care?
Because these rules decide what federal officers may do to you, and you have a legal right to read them.
Your home. Whether officers may enter a home without a judge's warrant is among the most basic constitutional questions there is. The two ICE memos released on the subject, including one publicly reported to authorize forced entry on an administrative warrant, are withheld almost entirely.
Your phone and your camera. Watching and recording officers in public is how many Americans hold government accountable. No rules governing how officers treat observers have been released so far.
Your face and your posts. Facial recognition and social media monitoring can reach anyone, not just suspects. The public deserves to know the limits.
Your citizenship. U.S. citizens have been detained during immigration operations. The rules officers use to verify citizenship should be public.
War and peace. How the Pentagon reports to Congress, and how it defines an "imminent threat," shape whether Congress can exercise its constitutional power over war.
Your tax dollars. FOIA lawsuits cost taxpayers money on both sides. Answering requests on time is cheaper than litigating them.
The rules outlast any President. Policies written now will be used by future administrations of either party.
This is patriot over partisan. Supporting law enforcement, supporting our military, and insisting that the public can read the rules they follow are not competing values. Openness is what earns public trust.
Frequently asked questions
How long does a federal agency have to answer a FOIA request?
Twenty working days to decide whether it will comply, extendable by 10 working days in unusual circumstances with written notice (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)). If the agency misses the deadline, the requester may sue without first filing an administrative appeal.
What is Exemption 7(E)?
It allows an agency to withhold law enforcement techniques, procedures or guidelines when disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law. The agency bears the burden of showing the exemption applies, must reasonably foresee harm from release, and must release any segregable non-exempt portion.
What is a Vaughn index?
A list, typically filed with a summary judgment motion in a FOIA case, that describes each withheld record or redaction and explains the exemption claimed, so a court can test whether the withholding is justified.
Can I get attorney's fees if I sue under FOIA?
A court may award reasonable fees and costs when the requester "substantially prevails," including when the lawsuit causes the agency to voluntarily change its position (5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E)). Courts also weigh the public benefit, the requester's interest and whether the agency's position was reasonable.
What records has Biazzo Law obtained so far?
As of October 22, 2026: 38 pages from DHS on facial recognition, 654 redacted pages from ICE on use of force, arrest authority, training and a Minnesota surge operation, 47 redacted pages from the FBI on online investigations, and one page from the Defense Department on retired officers. Processing continues.
Can Congress fix FOIA delays?
Yes. Congress can hold hearings, subpoena staffing records, request GAO and inspector general audits, fund FOIA offices through appropriations, and amend FOIA. The Congress elected November 3, 2026 takes office January 3, 2027.
Is this a partisan issue?
No. FOIA has been strengthened by bipartisan majorities several times since 1966, and agencies under administrations of both parties have struggled to meet its deadlines.
The Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program
These lawsuits are part of the Biazzo Law Government Oversight Program, a nonpartisan public-service initiative that applies the same constitutional standards to every President, party, agency and official. The Program:
Submits and, when necessary, litigates Freedom of Information Act requests across federal agencies
Publishes the records it obtains, with plain-language explanations, as processing continues
Files amicus curiae briefs in significant constitutional cases
Supports only lawful, peaceful civic engagement
We will update this post as the agencies release more records and the courts rule.
Follow the cases and our FOIA tracker: Government Oversight Program · Media inquiries: (703) 297-5777 · corey@biazzolaw.com
Related reading
FOIA Lawsuit Filed Against DHS and ICE Concerning Requests for Agency Policies and Records
FOIA Action Filed Against Department of Defense Concerning Requests for Agency Policies and Records
U.S. Military Action in Iran: The Constitution Requires Lawful Authorization for War
What Does Article I Give Congress the Power to Do? A Nonpartisan Voter's Guide
Sources
Court records (U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida): Biazzo Law, PLLC v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, No. 0:26-cv-61089; Biazzo Law, PLLC v. U.S. Department of Defense, No. 0:26-cv-61107; Biazzo Law, PLLC v. U.S. Department of Justice, No. 0:26-cv-61165. Complaints, answers (May 21–28, 2026), order staying the DHS/ICE case (July 2, 2026) and defendants' status report (Aug. 31, 2026).
Agency releases: DHS interim responses (July 20 and Aug. 28, 2026); ICE interim responses, FOIA No. 2026-ICLI-00047 (Aug. 27 and Sept. 25, 2026); FBI release, FOIPA No. 1729319 (June 30, 2026); Department of Defense first interim response (Aug. 16, 2026).
Statutes and cases: 5 U.S.C. § 552; NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. 132 (1975); Milner v. Department of the Navy, 562 U.S. 562 (2011); Vaughn v. Rosen, 484 F.2d 820 (D.C. Cir. 1973); Center to Advance Security in America v. USAID, No. 24-3505 (D.D.C. Mar. 11, 2025), as summarized by DOJ's Office of Information Policy.
Government data and documents:
National Archives, Office of Government Information Services, 2026 Annual Report, Appendix B (May 2026)
DHS, Directive 026-11, Use of Face Recognition and Face Capture Technologies (Sept. 2023)
AILA, ICE Publishes 2023 Directive on Firearms and Use of Force
Reporting:
Nate Jones, "Did Trump's cuts slow access to public records? We found 26 cases that say yes," The Washington Post (Mar. 14, 2026), as republished
Justin Doubleday, "'Significant' staff cuts drive rising FOIA backlogs," Federal News Network (Mar. 20, 2026)
Linda Jacobson, "Trump's Education Department Leaves Mountain of Public Records Requests Unaddressed," The 74 (July 21, 2026)
Sydney Lupkin, "After promising transparency, RFK guts public records teams at HHS," NPR (Apr. 3, 2025)
Rachana Pradhan and Brett Kelman, "Firings at Federal Health Agencies Decimate Offices That Release Public Records," KFF Health News (Apr. 7, 2025); Rachana Pradhan, "In Reversal, FDA Rehires Staff Tasked With Releasing Public Records" (May 2, 2025)
"'Good luck with that.' Trump administration terminates privacy officials at agency overseeing government hiring and firing," CNN (Feb. 18, 2025)
"Trump Justice Department fires more career officials," Reuters (Mar. 7, 2025)
Immigration Policy Tracking Project, DHS removes from website directive on face recognition and face capture technologies (citing Wired)
Wikipedia, Operation Metro Surge (background)
Disclaimer: This post is for general informational and educational purposes only and is not legal advice. It does not create an attorney-client relationship. Biazzo Law, PLLC is the plaintiff in the cases described, which remain pending; nothing in this post waives any claim or position in those cases, including claims for attorney's fees and costs. Statements about the agencies' releases describe the records and the agencies' own letters as of October 22, 2026. Biazzo Law does not support or oppose any political party or candidate.
Post-Lawsuit Production Material Received as of 10/22/26
FOIA Lawsuit Against DHS & ICE
FOIA Lawsuit Against DOJ & FBI
FOIA Lawsuit Against DoD
Comments