The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has finalized a rule that fundamentally alters how individuals submit requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Privacy Act of 1974. Effective January 22, 2026, requesters must generally file these requests electronically through DHS web portals, marking a shift away from traditional mail, fax, or email methods. Announced in the Federal Register on December 23, 2025, this update to 6 CFR Part 5 seeks to enhance efficiency in processing public inquiries for government records. The change addresses longstanding challenges in request handling, potentially accelerating access to information while minimizing errors in routing and response. As federal agencies increasingly digitize operations, this rule underscores DHS's commitment to leveraging technology for transparency, though it raises questions about accessibility for underserved populations.
Background and Legal Authority
DHS derives its authority for this rule from several statutes, including 5 U.S.C. 301, 552, and 552a, as well as 6 U.S.C. 112(e) and 142. The Secretary of Homeland Security delegated implementation to the Chief Privacy Officer, as outlined in DHS Delegation No. 13001, Revision 01, dated June 2, 2020. This final rule builds on prior updates to FOIA and Privacy Act procedures in November 2022 (87 FR 68599) and February 2024 (89 FR 14369), which refined aspects of request processing but did not mandate electronic submission.
The Privacy Act of 1974 protects personal information held by federal agencies, allowing individuals to access and amend their records. FOIA, enacted in 1966 and amended multiple times, promotes public access to government documents, with exemptions for national security and privacy concerns. DHS handles a high volume of such requests annually, often involving sensitive areas like immigration, border security, and cybersecurity. Past legal precedents, such as the Supreme Court's decision in Department of Justice v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (1989), have emphasized balancing transparency with privacy, influencing how agencies structure access procedures. Politically, this rule aligns with executive efforts to modernize government operations, though it emerges amid broader debates on digital equity following the COVID-19 pandemic's acceleration of online services.
Key Changes in the Rule
The rule amends sections 5.3(a)(2) and 5.21(a)(6) of 6 CFR Part 5, requiring submissions through the DHS FOIA portal at https://www.dhs.gov/foia or component-specific sites like https://www.foia.gov. DHS will no longer accept requests via mail to the Privacy Office or components, fax, or email, except in limited cases. As stated in the Federal Register, 'By accepting requests only through DHS's or its components' websites, DHS will ensure requests are sent to the correct DHS Headquarters office or DHS component.' This aims to reduce misdirected requests and expedite processing.
For those unable to submit electronically—such as incarcerated individuals—DHS FOIA public liaisons may facilitate alternatives upon request. The rule also clarifies procedures for unclear requests, allowing DHS to seek clarification electronically and administratively close non-responsive cases after 30 working days. Requesters can resubmit with more details without prejudice. An appendix update lists contact information for DHS components, including U.S. Customs and Border Protection and Immigration and Customs Enforcement, directing users to electronic portals first.
These modifications stem from DHS's observation that most requesters already use digital methods, making the shift a logical extension of current practices. The rule exempts itself from notice-and-comment requirements under 5 U.S.C. 553(b)(A) and (B), classifying it as a procedural update with minimal public impact.
Implications and Perspectives
In the short term, the rule promises operational efficiencies. DHS notes it will 'reduce the time to interact with requesters and also expedite the time requesters will receive responsive records.' By minimizing manual data entry from non-portal sources, staff can focus on record searches and reviews, potentially shortening backlogs that have plagued agencies. A 2023 Government Accountability Office report highlighted FOIA processing delays across federal entities, attributing some to outdated submission methods.
Long-term implications include broader adoption of digital tools in government transparency. Proponents, including transparency advocates like the American Civil Liberties Union, may view this as a step toward faster information access, aligning with the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016's emphasis on proactive disclosure. However, critics from digital rights groups, such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation, could argue it exacerbates the digital divide, disadvantaging those without internet access or technical skills—estimated at 7 percent of U.S. adults per Pew Research Center data.
From a legal standpoint, the rule's exemption from public comment might invite challenges under the Administrative Procedure Act, though courts often defer to agencies on procedural rules, as in Chrysler Corp. v. Brown (1979). Politically, it reflects bipartisan pushes for efficiency but occurs under an administration focused on reducing regulatory burdens, per Executive Order 13563.
Different perspectives highlight tensions: journalists and researchers benefit from streamlined processes, while vulnerable populations may face barriers, prompting calls for robust exception mechanisms.
Forward-Looking Conclusion
This DHS rule centralizes FOIA and Privacy Act requests electronically, promising quicker processing and fewer errors while maintaining limited accommodations for access challenges. Key takeaways include enhanced efficiency and a procedural shift without new costs, as affirmed in regulatory analyses. Moving forward, DHS may need to monitor implementation for equity issues, potentially expanding liaison support or outreach. Ongoing debates could focus on integrating advanced technologies like AI for request handling, or legislative adjustments to address digital access gaps, ensuring the rule evolves with public needs.
