The FOIA is commonly known for being invoked by news organizations for reporting purposes, though such uses make up less than 10% of all requests—which are more frequently made by businesses, law firms, and individuals.

§ 552(a)(1)(C), and to make available for public inspection and copying their opinions, statements of policy, interpretations, and staff manuals and instructions that are not already published in the Federal Register, § 552(a)(2).

Notwithstanding the White House's opposition, Congress expanded Section 3 of the APA as a standalone measure in 1966 to further standardize the publication of government records, consistent with the belief that the people have the "right to know" about them.

"[7] In this way, there is recourse for one seeking information to go to a federal court if suspicion of illegal tampering or delayed sending of records exists.

[17] For reasons now unclear but which may have had to do with the way the enactment of Title 5 changed how the law being amended was supposed to be cited, the original Freedom of Information Act was replaced.

Following the Watergate scandal, President Gerald R. Ford wanted to sign FOIA-strengthening amendments in the Privacy Act of 1974, but White House Chief of Staff Donald Rumsfeld and deputy Dick Cheney were concerned about leaks.

[18] Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Antonin Scalia advised the bill was unconstitutional and even telephoned the CIA asking them to lobby a particular White House staffer.

[18] However, on November 21, the lame-duck Congress overrode President Ford's veto, giving the United States the core Freedom of Information Act still in effect today, with judicial review of executive secrecy claims.

[18][19] Scalia remained highly critical of the 1974 amendments, writing years later that "It is the Taj Mahal of the Doctrine of Unanticipated Consequences, the Sistine Chapel of Cost-Benefit Analysis Ignored.

"[20] Scalia particularly disliked the availability of judicial review, decrying that if "an agency denies a freedom of information request, shazam!—the full force of the Third Branch of the government is summoned to the wronged party's assistance.

[23] The outcry from the effect that the Reagan Order had on FOIA requests was a factor in leading President Clinton to dramatically alter the criteria in 1995.

Congress amended FOIA to address the fees charged by different categories of requesters and the scope of access to law enforcement and national security records.

[26] This release of information allowed many previously publicly unknown details about the Cold War and other historical events to be discussed openly.

Given the large volume of records and limited resources, the amendment also extended the agencies' required response time to FOIA requests.

[29] Within this omnibus legislation were amendments to the FOIA (pertaining mainly to intelligence agencies) entitled "Prohibition on Compliance with Requests for Information Submitted by Foreign Governments":[30] Section 552(a)(3) of title 5, United States Code, is amended— (1) in subparagraph (A) by inserting "and except as provided in subparagraph (E)", after "of this subsection"; and (2) by adding at the end the following: In effect, this new language precluded any covered U.S. intelligence agency from disclosing records in response to FOIA requests made by foreign governments or international governmental organizations.

[33] According to a White House press release, it does so by: Changes include the following: On December 29, 2009, President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13526, which allows the government to classify certain specific types of information relevant to national security after it has been requested.

"[needs update] A major issue in released documentation is government "redaction" of certain passages deemed applicable to the Exemption section of the FOIA.

Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) officers in charge of responding to FOIA requests "so heavily redacted the released records as to preclude needed research.

Of the 164 files and about eighteen thousand pages collected by the FBI, two-thirds were withheld from Athan G. Theoharis, most notably one entire folder entitled the "White House Security Survey".

Despite finding out that the Truman Library had an accessible file which documented all the reports of this folder, the FBI and Office of Information and Privacy put forth "stony resistance" to the FOIA appeal process.

"[41] Thus, when Theoharis and company were in the middle of fighting in court to obtain J. Edgar Hoover files, they may well have benefited from Landano and also Janet Reno's assertions of the government's need for "greater openness" and "discretionary releases" in 1993.

According to Scott Armstrong, taking into account labor and material costs, the three presidential administrations spent almost $9.3 million on contesting the National Security Archive FOIA requests for PROFS e-mail records.

[44] In 2013, the Associated Press uncovered several federal agencies where staff regularly used fictitious identities and secret or unlisted email accounts to conduct government business.

[45][46][47][48] In some cases, the government demanded exorbitant (greater than $1 million) fees for records that appeals showed should be available for minimal cost.

The court held that because there was no pressing urgency to Open America's request, its lawsuit did not move it to the head of the queue, and it would have to wait its turn.

[52] This legal reasoning and holding has been adopted by all other American circuits, though courts continue to complain that FOIA request delays are too long.

Scores of five agencies, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Department of Health and Human Services, the SEC, the DOJ, and the EPA, even decreased marginally.

[54] Often unreasonably broad, repetitive, or based on misinformation, the high volume of requests has led to what a Colorado official said amounts to "a denial-of-service attack on local government."

Local election officials in Florida and Michigan have reported spending 25–70% of staff time in recent years on processing public records requests.

[55] In 2022, officials in Maricopa County, Arizona reported one request that required nearly half the election office's staff to spend four days sorting and scanning 20,000 documents.