In discussing the Vice President’s declassification authority yesterday, we should have noted that some categories of information are protected by statute, not just by executive order. Such information, including intelligence sources and methods that are protected by the National Security Act, cannot simply be declassified by presidential (or vice presidential) fiat.
The point was made in “The White House’s maestro of secrets,” Roanoke Times, February 17.
The AIPAC case, involving the use of the Espionage Act to prosecute the receipt (and not merely the disclosure) of classified information, was viewed from Israel in “Washington: Lobbying for freedom of speech” by Nathan Guttman, Jerusalem Post, February 16.
“Criticism rained down on Vice President Dick Cheney this week for failing to disclose his hunting accident to the public for a day, but advocates of open government said the episode was nothing new. For five years, they said, Cheney has led the Bush administration’s efforts to curtail the flow of government information.”
See “Activists assert secrecy is Cheney’s hallmark” by Charlie Savage, Boston Globe, February 17.
OPM’s new HR 2.0 initiative is entering hostile terrain. Those who have followed federal HR modernization for years desperately want this effort to succeed.
January saw us watching whether the government would fund science. February has been about how that funding will be distributed, regulated, and contested.
This rule gives agencies significantly more authority over certain career policy roles. Whether that authority improves accountability or creates new risks depends almost entirely on how agencies interrupt and apply it.
Our environmental system was built for 1970s-era pollution control, but today it needs stable, integrated, multi-level governance that can make tradeoffs, share and use evidence, and deliver infrastructure while demonstrating that improved trust and participation are essential to future progress.