Harold C. Relyea, a scholar of American government at the Congressional Research Service, retired on January 30 after 37 years of government service.
When I first started exploring government secrecy policy quite a few years ago, the writings of Harold Relyea were some of the first and some of the most informative things that I found to read. He showed how secrecy had deep roots in American history, and he explained that national security classification functioned as a bureaucratic “system” with well-defined rules and procedures as well as characteristic problems. It followed that the system could be confronted and challenged when necessary.
By its nature, most of Dr. Relyea’s work for Congress was invisible to the public. Its impact, though sometimes profound, was not broadly advertised. But he leaves a lasting imprint on the published record.
At the request of the Church Committee that investigated the U.S. intelligence community in the mid-1970s, he authored “The Evolution and Organization of the Federal Intelligence Function: A Brief Overview (1776-1975),” which appeared in Book VI of the Committee’s Final Report (and which was also published independently).
Among numerous other works of enduring value, he prepared a book-length 1974 report on “National Emergency Powers.” A recent, abbreviated version of the same title is here (pdf).
One of his last major reports for CRS explored “Security Classified and Controlled Information” (pdf), expertly describing the management challenges posed by the parallel classified and “sensitive but unclassified” information security regimes.
Another report he wrote on “Presidential Advisers’ Testimony Before Congressional Committees” (pdf) was utilized by the 9/11 Commission to cajole testimony from reluctant Bush Administration officials.
Dr. Relyea authored several books, notably including “Silencing Science” (1994), which examined national security controls on scientific communication. He also found time — during his off-hours, no doubt — to answer questions from interested members of the public concerning secrecy policy and related topics.
We thank him and wish him well.
By preparing credible, bipartisan options now, before the bill becomes law, we can give the Administration a plan that is ready to implement rather than another study that gathers dust.
Even as companies and countries race to adopt AI, the U.S. lacks the capacity to fully characterize the behavior and risks of AI systems and ensure leadership across the AI stack. This gap has direct consequences for Commerce’s core missions.
The last remaining agreement limiting U.S. and Russian nuclear weapons has now expired. For the first time since 1972, there is no treaty-bound cap on strategic nuclear weapons.
As states take up AI regulation, they must prioritize transparency and build technical capacity to ensure effective governance and build public trust.