Requests for federal government information are at the highest they have ever been with the backlogs to show for it. Voluminous, complex, repetitive, and unduly burdensome requests for information are flooding access professionals’ workloads. Government agencies have fallen behind the public sector in acquiring and using technology to process requests for information. At the heart of all these issues is the same problem: The internal government infrastructure is not capable of managing and responding to government information requests.

Providing access and support for transparency is essential to civic engagement, self-governance, and protections against government corruption. It is the primary avenue for citizens to see what their government is up to and whether it is working in the public’s interest. However, whether by design or consequence, the federal FOIA process is nearly stagnant.

What we know:

• The number of FOIA requests is growing at an exponential rate.
• Federal FOIA staffing was heavily reduced at the hand of DOGE, and those unfilled positions mean fewer requests can be processed.
• Backlogs continue to be on the rise, as they have been for years, but they are now at their highest levels.
• FOIA professionals do not have adequate resources, specifically in staffing and technology, to resolve the backlog of requests at the federal level.
• Technology-assisted requests are making it easier for requesters to file extensive requests faster than humanly possible.
• Even if FOIA professionals want to make internal changes to increase efficiencies, they face obstacles within their agencies, slowing and blocking changes.

Access professionals are the front-line stewards of public access to government information. If they don’t have the time and tools to get their work done, information will not be publicly available. They are responsible for facilitating public access by receiving requests, tracking them, interpreting what is being requested, determining what will be released, levying fees when allowable, and resolving disputes with stakeholders. They must also ensure legal compliance through determining redactions, exemptions, denials, timelines, records management, and potential litigation. They do all of this while managing internal processing workflows—conducting records searches, reviewing and preparing records for release, keeping records organized and searchable, and following retention schedules.

It is a balance of legalities and logistics. Like any engine, it can’t run well without fuel, and in this context, that fuel is money, manpower, and technology. Agencies across the government are disparate in how they functionally respond to requests. Some are centralized, and some are decentralized. Some use advanced technology for search, review, redaction, and analytics; while others rely on spreadsheets and electronic filing. The needs of larger agencies that receive more than 100,000 requests per year would not compare to small agencies that receive fewer than 50 requests per year. But across most agencies, the backlogs are becoming too long to clear, and access professionals are just watching new requests join the queue with no hope of response any time soon.

A solution will require a multi-faceted approach to augment resources, both within agencies and through external funding structures: increase funding, analyze internal support operations, and review efficient technology use.

Increase funding

Getting the proper resources to drive more efficient processing takes money, and, at the federal level, that requires Congress to require agencies to properly fund the FOIA system. The FOIA Advisory Committee recently recommended that Congress provide funding directions that require agencies to consider their workforce size, the changes in requests in the past five years in volume and complexity, backlogs, and other operational structures (Recommendation 2026-03). In 2021, the Office of Government Information Services recommended that Congress ask the Government Accountability Office to study whether agencies are adequately funded and what they could accomplish with additional funding, specifically timely response and backlog reduction.

However, in this current administrative climate, it is unlikely that Congress as a whole will respond in a fashion supportive to FOIA. But individual lawmakers can make such requests of the GAO, or the comptroller general can initiate such studies. A potential catalyst would be (like the intent of FOIA itself) to shine light on the financial challenges agencies are experiencing.

Analyze operations

Agencies need to realistically analyze staffing levels and workloads to understand why the backlogs are increasing and what would be required to eliminate them. This analysis should also consider revising operational procedures. For example, do agencies need dedicated FOI professionals to respond to requests? Do they need centralized systems to respond? Do they need additional subject matter experts on staff to process complex requests?

In focus group research, FOIA professionals said that their work is rarely considered mission critical, and therefore they have trouble getting the proper resources they need to complete their work. As a result, the FOIA Advisory Committee recommended that agencies study the infrastructure needed to carry out their open government responsibilities (Recommendation 2026-11). Healthy FOIA operations run on proper staffing levels as well as appropriate technology to support productivity.

Review technology

Agencies should also review how they can adopt new technology to use for more efficient processing. Externally, the Office of Information Policy, the Office of Governmental Information Services, and the Department of the Interior are developing a FOIA technology inventory to evaluate what is currently in use. However, agencies themselves should study how technology can augment their own internal processes and how those processes can be modernized.

Adopting technology in government agencies is a long and protracted process. It is so difficult that technology can be outdated by the time agencies actually receive it. Technology adoption and acquisition is a slow and protracted process at the government level, and there have been previous calls for a revision of the process, especially for agency response to information requests. Additionally, there is no consistent system across agencies because agencies adopt the technology that makes the most sense for their needs and that fits their own budgets. This lack of interoperable technology across agencies is not a new obstacle, but it is becoming more apparent as other FOIA resources are shrinking.

Agencies’ piecemeal responses to the inability to respond to requests are not a long-term solution. For example, providing time extensions, a common response to the lack of capability to respond to requests, doesn’t solve the problem and disproportionately harms requesters. Agencies are simply moving the problem later in time rather than managing what is causing the problem. The requests are not the problem, the response capability is.

Charging more fees for voluminous or complex requests also ignores the root causes and unduly punishes requesters, especially when they are used as a cudgel to keep requesters at bay. Taxpayers already foot the bill for the FOIA process. Additional fees will not benefit the agencies charging them. Where fees are employed, they should be specifically structured to charge only what is necessary, leaving less room for weaponization.

Traditional solutions have not worked, and a concerted effort needs to be engaged. Fueling the response process with proper resources, staffing, and technology, all of which will need financial support, is essential. Unfortunately, that kind of tangible support is receding, and it is showing in backlogs and access professionals’ workloads. Ultimately, this failure will result in a lack of civic engagement and governmental accountability, which inevitably leads to eroded public trust and a weakened democracy.