Twists and Turns in Pentagon Information Policy
Some of the most important news in Department of Defense information policy has to do with what did not happen.
Earlier this year, the Pentagon asked Congress to enact two new provisions that would have restricted public access to broad swaths of unclassified information. But Congress declined to approve either one.
One provision would have created a new exemption for unclassified information regarding weapons of mass destruction. The other proposed provision would have established civil and criminal penalties for unauthorized publication or sale of “geodetic products” (i.e. maps and images) that the Secretary of Defense had designated for “limited distribution.”
Neither provision survived in either the House or Senate versions of the FY 2008 Defense Authorization Act and, barring extraordinary developments, will not be enacted into law.
Also this year, a Freedom of Information Act exemption for “operational files” of the Defense Intelligence Agency is set to expire. DIA did not request, and will not receive, an extension of the controversial exemption, which was adopted in the 2006 Defense Authorization Act with a “sunset” date of December 31, 2007.
Last week, the Department of Defense issued a final rule setting forth “the policies and procedures … that permit U.S. citizens to perform historical research in records created by or in the custody of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).”
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.
Durable and legitimate climate action requires a government capable of clearly weighting, explaining, and managing cost tradeoffs to the widest away of audiences, which in turn requires strong technocratic competency.