Trump Promised Transparency. The FOIA Fight Shows Who Pays for Secrecy

Listen to the complete episode:

Watch the video edition: Morning Liberty Brief on YouTube.

Donald Trump’s promise to be “the most transparent president in history” sounds like a slogan built for the rally stage: huge, confident, impossible to miss. The more useful question is less theatrical. What does transparency mean when a person without a security clearance wants to know what the government did, who authorized it, how public money was spent, or why an agency refused to answer?

The latest Morning Liberty Brief takes up that question through a discussion of a Reason article titled “Trump Promised Transparency. His Administration Keeps Finding New Ways to Hide Records.” The source article, by Matthew Petti and published August 15, 2026, argues that the administration’s public language about openness has collided with the less glamorous systems that preserve—or bury—the record of government action. source↗

The transparency trap: spectacle versus access

Claire Hawthorne and Dean Archer do not treat transparency as a single virtue that automatically settles every dispute. Their exchange keeps returning to the gap between a government opening a few famous archives and a government allowing routine scrutiny of its current decisions. That distinction matters because secrecy is not only created by stamping “classified” on a dramatic historical file. It can also emerge through delay, redaction, missing messages, disputed preservation duties, and bureaucratic resistance.

The source discussion describes the administration’s high-profile attention to the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, UFO records, and files connected to Jeffrey Epstein. It also describes the JFK releases as containing some shocking material, while characterizing the UFO records as thin and the Epstein rollout as an embarrassing failure. source↗

That is the first major analytical point in the podcast: disclosure can become performance. A binder handed to influencers creates an image of access, but it does not necessarily create meaningful public knowledge. According to the source discussion, the “Phase one” binders contained heavily redacted copies of documents already available to the public, and the promised follow-up did not arrive. source↗

For liberty-minded observers, this should trigger suspicion in both directions. Government secrecy is dangerous, but so is a politics of disclosure that asks the public to applaud the folder instead of inspecting what is inside it. The test is not whether officials can produce a dramatic announcement. The test is whether independent reporters, litigants, historians, and ordinary citizens receive usable records that can be checked against the government’s own story.

FOIA is the unglamorous battlefield

The Freedom of Information Act is often discussed as if it were a technical service window: submit a request, wait, receive documents. In practice, it is one of the few legal mechanisms that lets outsiders force government agencies to confront questions they would prefer to manage internally. The law is imperfect, slow, and full of exemptions, but its existence creates a presumption that government activity should leave a reviewable trail.

The source article and podcast discussion point to a particularly stark data point: in fiscal year 2025, the federal government granted a little under half of FOIA requests, described as the lowest rate since 2010 according to data compiled by The New York Times. source↗

A percentage like that does not tell us that every denied request was improper. Some records genuinely implicate personal privacy, intelligence sources, military operations, or other recognized interests. But the number does tell us why slogans are inadequate. If access is shrinking across the ordinary request system, then a few high-profile releases cannot fairly be used as proof that the whole government is becoming more open.

Hawthorne’s contribution to the discussion is to drag the issue away from institutional self-congratulation and toward consequences. Who bears the cost when the record disappears? Not usually the official who made the decision. The cost is carried by the person trying to challenge a government action, the journalist tracing public money, the family seeking an explanation, or the community trying to establish what happened after force was used in its name.

Presidential records are not private souvenirs

The discussion also focuses on the Presidential Records Act, which requires the White House to preserve its records for posterity. source↗

That principle is easy to understand even if the legal arguments become complicated: a president may occupy the office, but the institutional record is not a personal scrapbook. The communications that document official decisions belong to the historical and constitutional record of the government. Treating them as disposable property turns accountability into a matter of whatever survives an official’s preferred filing habits.

The source discussion says the Department of Justice fought in court to overturn the Presidential Records Act and references Trump’s handling of papers between his two terms. source↗

There is a temptation to reduce this to one politician’s personality, but that would miss the structural danger. If recordkeeping depends on the goodwill of the executive, then every administration inherits an incentive to define inconvenient evidence out of existence. A president who claims credit for successful decisions may be tempted to preserve the flattering record and obscure the messy one. That is precisely why preservation rules must outlast the mood of the person in power.

Digital secrecy changes the shape of the problem

The research brief prepared for this episode adds a modern complication: government records are increasingly created inside encrypted and potentially ephemeral messaging systems. Apps that automatically delete messages can make official conversations harder to reconstruct after the fact, while archiving tools can create separate and potentially incomplete copies. The brief specifically discusses Signal, automatic deletion, and TeleMessage as examples of how digital communications complicate preservation and forensic review. source↗

Encryption itself is not the enemy. Private communication can protect journalists, whistleblowers, dissidents, and citizens from surveillance. A liberty-first position should resist the lazy idea that every private message must be available to the state. The sharper question is whether officials are using privacy tools to protect legitimate personal security or to avoid creating—and later preserving—the records of official business.

That distinction is not solved by banning a particular app. It requires clear rules about when a communication is an agency or presidential record, who must preserve it, how quickly preservation must occur, and what consequences follow when a system is selected precisely because it defeats oversight. Technology can accelerate freedom, but it can also accelerate plausible deniability. The law has to address the behavior, not merely chase the brand name of the software.

Why the hosts’ disagreement matters

Archer frames the administration’s conduct as a practical assault on FOIA and recordkeeping. Hawthorne pushes him to identify the people who lose power when access collapses. Their disagreement is productive because it avoids two familiar media failures: treating transparency as a partisan possession, or treating every secrecy claim as proof of a conspiracy.

The hosts also question whether a principle can be defended without examining its consequences. That is the libertarian pressure point. A government powerful enough to wage war, spend public funds, regulate private life, and classify information must be answerable to people outside the chain of command. But public accountability should not mean pretending that every allegation has already been proven. The strongest case for openness is built from documents, dates, rules, court filings, and verifiable discrepancies—not from the emotional force of a viral accusation.

This is why the Reason source is useful even where readers may disagree with its political framing. It directs attention from presidential branding to institutional mechanics: request-grant rates, preservation obligations, courtroom arguments, and the difference between a fresh disclosure and a repackaged document. source↗

The standard should be simple, even when the law is not

Readers do not need to worship FOIA to defend the public’s right to know. They need to ask a few hard questions. Was the record created in the course of official business? Was it preserved under the applicable rules? Was the exemption narrowly applied? Did the agency search the systems where the records actually existed? If a release was announced, did the public receive new information or merely a ceremonial package?

Those questions are not anti-government. They are anti-impunity. A functioning state should be able to explain its decisions without demanding that citizens trust every official, every spokesperson, and every blacked-out page. When the government claims that information cannot be produced, the claim itself should be reviewable.

Morning Liberty Brief lands on a conclusion that deserves to travel beyond this particular administration: transparency is not a personality trait. It is a system of enforceable obligations. The public should judge openness by the records available after the cameras leave, the lawsuit is filed, and the slogan has been repeated for the hundredth time.

Conclusion: no archive, no accountability

Trump’s transparency promise is politically powerful because people are tired of sealed files and official evasions. But the answer cannot be a new spectacle of selected disclosure layered over a weaker everyday records system. If FOIA access declines, preservation rules are challenged, and digital communications become conveniently ephemeral, then the public is left with branding instead of evidence.

The liberty-first demand is straightforward: preserve the record, apply exemptions narrowly, disclose what can be disclosed, and let independent people test the government’s account. Anything less leaves power holding the camera, writing the caption, and deciding which footage never existed.

Source: Matthew Petti, “Trump Promised Transparency. His Administration Keeps Finding New Ways to Hide Records,” Reason, August 15, 2026. Read the source article.