404 Media

2025-08-13 21:53:37

Trump Administration Outlines Plan to Throw Out an Agency's FOIA Requests En Masse

The Department of Energy (DOE) said in a public notice scheduled to be published Thursday that it will throw out all Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests sent to the agency before October 1, 2024 unless the requester proactively emails the agency to tell it they are still interested in the documents they requested. This will result in the improper closure of likely thousands of FOIA requests if not more; government transparency experts told 404 Media that the move is “insane,” “ludicrous,” a “Pandora’s Box,” and “an underhanded attempt to close out as many FOIA requests as possible.”

The DOE notice says “requesters who submitted a FOIA request to DOE HQ at any time prior to October 1, 2024 (FY25), that is still open and is not under active litigation with DOE (or another Federal agency) shall email StillInterestedFOIA@hq.doe.gov to continue processing of the FOIA request […] If DOE HQ does not receive a response from requesters within the 30-day time-period with a DOE control number, no further action will be taken on the open FOIA request(s), and the file may be administratively closed.” A note at the top of the notice says it is scheduled to be formally published in the Federal Register on Thursday.

The agency will send out what are known as “still interested” letters, which federal agencies have used over the years to see if a requester wants to withdraw their request after a certain period of inactivity. These types of letters are controversial and perhaps not legal, and previous administrations have said that they should be used rarely and that requests should only be closed after an agency made multiple attempts to contact a requester over multiple methods of communication. What the DOE is doing now is sending these letters to submitters of all requests prior to October 1, 2024, which is not really that long ago; it also said it will close the requests of people who do not respond in a specific way to a specific email address.

FOIA requests—especially complicated ones—can often take months or years to process. I have outstanding FOIA requests with numerous federal agencies that I filed years ago, and am still interested in getting back, and I have gotten useful documents from federal agencies after years of waiting. The notion that large numbers of people who filed FOIA requests as recently as September 2024, which is less than a year ago, are suddenly uninterested in getting the documents they requested is absurd and should be seen as an attack on public transparency, experts told 404 Media. The DOE’s own reports show that it often does not respond to FOIA requests within a year, and, of course, a backlog exists in part because agencies are not terribly responsive to FOIA.

“If a requester proactively reaches out and says I am withdrawing my request, then no problem, they don’t have to process it,” Adam Marshall, senior staff attorney at the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, told me. “The agency can’t say we’ve decided we’ve gotten a lot of requests and we don’t want to do them so we’re throwing them out.”

“I was pretty shocked when I saw this to be honest,” Marshall added. “I’ve never seen anything like this in 10 years of doing FOIA work, and it’s egregious for a few reasons. I don’t think agencies have the authority to close a FOIA request if they don’t get a response to a ‘still interested’ letter. The statute doesn’t provide for that authority, and the amount of time the agency is giving people to respond—30 days—it sounds like a long time but if you happen to miss that email or aren’t digging through your backlogs, it’s not a lot of time. The notion that FOIA requesters should keep an eye out in the Federal Register for this kind of notice is ludicrous.”

The DOE notice essentially claims that the agency believes it gets too many FOIA requests and doesn’t feel like answering them. “DOE’s incoming FOIA requests have more than tripled in the past four years, with over 4,000 requests received in FY24, and an expected 5,000 or more requests in FY25. DOE has limited resources to process the burgeoning number of FOIA requests,” the notice says. “Therefore, DOE is undertaking this endeavor as an attempt to free up government resources to better serve the American people and focus its efforts on more efficiently connecting the citizenry with the work of its government.”

Lauren Harper of the Freedom of the Press Foundation told me in an email that she also has not seen any sort of precedent for this and that “it is an underhanded attempt to close out as many FOIA requests as possible, because who in their right mind checks the federal register regularly, and it should be challenged in court. (On that note, I am filing a FOIA request about this proposal.)”

“The use of still interested letters isn't explicitly allowed in the FOIA statute at all, and, as far as I know, there is absolutely zero case law that would support the department sending a mass ‘still interested’ letter via the federal register,” she added. “That they are also sending emails is not a saving grace; these types of letters are supposed to be used sparingly—not as a flagrant attempt to reduce their backlog by any means necessary. I also worry it will open a Pandora's Box—if other agencies see this, some are sure to follow.”

Marshall said that FOIA response times have been getting worse for years across multiple administrations (which has also been my experience). The Trump administration and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) have cut a large number of jobs in many agencies across the government, which may have further degraded response times. But until this, there hadn’t been major proactive attempts taken by the self-defined “most transparent administration in history” to destroy FOIA.

“This is of a different nature than what we have seen so far, this affirmative, large-scale effort to purport to cancel a large number of pending FOIA requests,” Marshall said.

Limitations on Use of “Still-Interested” Inquiries

^{www.justice.gov}

404 Media

2025-08-13 16:10:21

ICE Propaganda Video That Used Jay-Z Song Hit With Copyright Takedown

A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) propaganda video that featured Jay-Z’s music was hit with a copyright takedown request on X, and appears to have been hit with copyright violations on both Instagram and Facebook as well.

The video features footage of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents training and doing immigration raids set to Jay-Z’s 2003 song “Public Service Announcement,” which has recently been used in at least two DHS videos. DHS tweeted the video alongside the caption “Hunt Cartels. Save America. JOIN.ICE.GOV.” The original tweet, from August 10, has 2.9 million views on X; the video has been replaced with the message “This media has been disabled in response to a report by the copyright owner.”

DHS also posted the video on Instagram and Facebook. On both platforms, the video has stayed up but Jay-Z’s music has been removed, suggesting that it got hit with a copyright notice on those platforms too. On Instagram, where it has nearly a million views, a message that says “This audio is no longer available” plays if you try to unmute the video. The sound on the video has been removed on Facebook as well, but a quirk of the platform allowed me to check what the removed audio was by clicking the name of the “sound” in the bottom left corner of the Reel, which showed it was indeed Jay-Z’s “Public Service Announcement. A Facebook user ripped and reposted the video, which still has the sound, and can be found here at the time of publication.

Neither Meta nor X responded to a request for comment. The Recording Industry Association of America, which files a huge number of copyright takedown requests across the internet for major artists, declined to comment to 404 Media. DHS also did not respond to a request for comment. Jay-Z’s Roc Nation also did not respond to a request for comment.

In recent weeks, DHS officials and agents have heavily ratcheted up the number of videos they post to social media. Many of the videos are heavily edited sizzle reels from immigration raids set to rap music or songs like the “Bad Boys” theme and Johnny Cash’s “God’s Gonna Cut You Down.”

The footage is being used to recruit new ICE agents and to promote the cruelty of Trump’s immigration raids; a video posted by chief border patrol agent Gregory Bovino features Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass warning about the overreach of the federal government in LA and includes a remixed version of “Public Service Announcement” over first-person footage of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents doing an immigration raid Thursday at a Home Depot in Los Angeles. That particular raid may have violated a court injunction, experts have argued.

“The Call of Duty aesthetic is sickening,” Chris Gilliard, co-director of The Critical Internet Studies Institute and author of the forthcoming book Luxury Surveillance, told 404 Media.

404 Media reported last week that CBP agents have been wearing Meta’s AI camera glasses to at least two recent immigration raids in Los Angeles (it is unclear what cameras were used to film the footage used in either of the videos featuring Jay-Z music).

“CBP utilize Go Pros mounted to helmets or body armor at times, as well as traditional DSLR handheld cameras,” a CBP spokesperson told 404 Media when we asked about its agents wearing Meta AI glasses. The spokesperson added “CBP does not have an arrangement with Meta. The use of personal recording devices is not authorized. However, Border Patrol agents may wear personally purchased sunglasses.”

DHS has also allowed Fox News reporters to embed with and film agents on raids, and footage from these raids shows DHS agents with DSLR cameras running alongside each other to capture footage. It is clearly important to this administration to capture and widely publicize this footage, which often emphasizes agents grabbing people who are running away from them.

The copyright takedown is notable because it shows DHS is not getting permission from artists to use their music in these propaganda videos, which are being used to recruit ICE agents in the immediate aftermath of a huge funding increase. As we reported earlier this month, ICE is trying to do a social media advertising blitz with part of this new funding, and is looking to plaster ads on social media, TV, and streaming sites. Despite this cash injection, early reports suggest that ICE is having trouble finding people to work for it.

Dept. of Homeland Security on Instagram: "Hunt Cartels. Save America. JOIN.ICE.GOV"

48K likes, 3,716 comments - dhsgov on August 10, 2025: "Hunt Cartels. Save America. JOIN.ICE.GOV".

^Instagram

404 Media

2025-08-13 13:37:24

Wyoming and South Dakota Age Verification Laws Could Include Huge Parts of the Internet

Last month, age verification laws went into effect in Wyoming and South Dakota, requiring sites hosting “material that is harmful to minors” to verify visitors are over 18 years old. These would normally just be two more states joining the nearly 30 that have so far ceded ground to a years-long campaign for enforcing invasive, ineffective methods of keeping kids away from porn online.

But these two states’ laws leave out an important condition: Unlike the laws passed in other states, they don’t state that this applies only to sites with “33.3 percent” or one-third “harmful” material. That could mean Wyoming and South Dakota would require a huge number of sites to use age verification because they host any material they deem harmful to minors, not just porn sites.

Louisiana became the first state to pass an age verification law in the US in January 2023, and since then, most states have either copied or modeled their laws on Louisiana’s—including in Arizona, Missouri, and Ohio, where these laws will be enacted within the coming weeks. And most have included the “one-third” clause, which would theoretically limit the age verification burden to adult sites. But dropping that provision, as Wyoming and South Dakota have done, opens a huge swath of sites to the burden of verifying the ages of visitors in those states.

Louisiana’s law states:

“Any commercial entity that knowingly and intentionally publishes or distributes material harmful to minors on the internet from a website that contains a substantial portion of such material shall be held liable if the entity fails to perform reasonable age verification methods to verify the age of individuals attempting to access the material.”

A “substantial portion” is 33.3 percent or more material on a site that’s “harmful to minors,” the law says.

The same organizations that have lobbied for age verification laws that apply to porn sites have also spent years targeting social media platforms like Reddit and X, as well as streaming services like Netflix, for hosting adult content they deem “sexploitation.” While these sites and platforms do host adult content, age-gating the entire internet only pushes adult consumers and children alike into less-regulated, more exploitative spaces and situations, while everyone just uses VPNs to get around gates.

Florida Sues Huge Porn Sites Including XVideos and Bang Bros Over Age Verification Law
The lawsuit alleges XVideos, Bang Bros, XNXX, Girls Gone Wild and TrafficFactory are in violation of Florida’s law that requires adult platforms to verify visitors are over 18.
404 MediaSamantha Cole

Adult industry advocacy group the Free Speech Coalition issued an alert about Wyoming and South Dakota’s dropping of the one-third or “substantial” requirement on Tuesday, writing that this could “create civil and criminal liability for social media platforms such as X, Reddit and Discord, retailers such as Amazon and Barnes & Noble, streaming platforms such as Netflix and Rumble,” and any other platform that simply allowed material these states consider “harmful to minors” but doesn’t age-verify. “Under these new laws, a platform with any amount of material ‘harmful to minors,’ is required to verify the age of all visitors using the site. Operators of platforms that fail to do so may be subject to civil suits or even arrest,” they wrote.

I asked Wyoming Representative Martha Lawley, the lead sponsor of the state's bill, if the omission was on purpose and why. "I did not include the '33% or 1/3 rule' in my Age Verification Bill because it creates an almost impossible burden on a victim pursuing a lawsuit for violations of the law. It is more difficult than many might understand to prove percentage of an internet site that qualifies as “pornographic or material harmful to minor'" Lawley wrote in an email. "This was a provision that the porn industry lobbied heavily to be included. In Wyoming, we resisted those efforts. The second issue I had with these types of provisions is that they created some potential U.S. Constitutional concerns. These Constitutional concerns were actually brought up by several U.S. Supreme Court justices during the oral argument in the Texas Age Verification case. So, in short the 1/3 limitation places an undue burden on victims and creates potential U.S. Constitutional concerns."

I asked South Dakota Representative and sponsor of that state's bill Bethany Soye the same question. "We intentionally used the standard of 'regular course of trade or business' instead of 1/3. The 1/3 standard leaves many questions open. How is the amount measured? Is it number of images, minutes of video, number of separate webpages, pixels, etc. During oral argument, a Justice (Alito if I remember correctly) asked the attorney what percentage of porn was on his client’s websites. The attorney couldn’t give him an answer, instead he mentioned the other things on the websites like articles on sexual health and how to be an activist against these laws," Soye told me in an email. "The 1/3 standard also calls into question the government’s compelling interest in protecting kids from porn. Are we saying that 33% is harmful to minors but a website with 30% is not? We chose regular course of business because it is focused on the purpose of the business/website, not an arbitrary number. If you look into the history of the bill, 33% was a totally random number put in the first bill passed in Louisiana. Other states have just been copying it since then. We hope that our standard becomes the norm for state laws moving forward."

Kansas Is About to Pass the Most Extreme Age Verification Law Yet
The bill would make sites with more than 25 percent adult content liable to fines, and lumps homosexuality into “sexual conduct.”
404 MediaSamantha Cole

A version of what could be the future of the internet in the US is already playing out in the UK. Last month, the UK enacted the Online Safety Act, which forces platforms to verify the ages of everyone who tries to access certain kinds of content deemed harmful to children. So far, this has included (but isn’t limited to) Discord, popular communities on Reddit, social media sites like Bluesky, and certain content on Spotify.
playlist.megaphone.fm?p=TBIEA2…
On Monday, a judge dismissed a case brought by the Wikimedia Foundation that argued the over-broadness of the new UK rules would “undermine the privacy and safety of Wikipedia’s volunteer contributors, expose the encyclopedia to manipulation and vandalism, and divert essential resources from protecting people and improving Wikipedia, one of the world’s most trusted and widely used digital public goods,” Wikimedia Foundation wrote. “For example, the Foundation would be required to verify the identity of many Wikipedia contributors, undermining the privacy that is central to keeping Wikipedia volunteers safe.”

"As we're seeing in the UK with the Online Safety Act, laws designed to protect the children from ‘harmful material’ online quickly metastasize and begin capturing nearly all users and all sites in surveillance and censorship schemes,” Mike Stabile, director of public policy at the Free Speech Coalition, told me in an email following the alert. “These laws give the government legal power to threaten platform owners into censoring or removing fairly innocuous content — healthcare information, mainstream films, memes, political speech — while decimating privacy protections for adults. Porn was only ever a Trojan horse for advancing these laws. Now, unfortunately, we're starting to see what we warned was inside all along."

Updated 8/13 2:35 p.m. EST with comment from Rep. Lawley.

Updated 8/13 3:35 p.m. EST with comment from Rep. Soye.

Wikimedia Foundation Challenges UK Online Safety Act Regulations – Wikimedia Foundation

UPDATE: On Monday, 11 August, the High Court of Justice dismissed the Wikimedia Foundation’s challenge to the UK’s Online Safety Act (OSA) Categorisation Regulations.

^{Wikimedia Foundation}

404 Media

2025-08-13 13:12:35

Podcast: Why Are DHS Agents Wearing Meta Ray-Bans?

We start this week with Jason’s article about a CBP official wearing Meta Ray-Bans smart glasses to an immigration raid. A lot of stuff happened after we published that article too. After the break, Sam tells us about the bargain that voice actors are making with AI. In the subscribers-only section, Jason tells us how a DEA official used a cop’s password to AI cameras to then do immigration surveillance.
playlist.megaphone.fm?e=TBIEA7…
Listen to the weekly podcast on Apple Podcasts,Spotify, or YouTube. Become a paid subscriber for access to this episode's bonus content and to power our journalism. If you become a paid subscriber, check your inbox for an email from our podcast host Transistor for a link to the subscribers-only version! You can also add that subscribers feed to your podcast app of choice and never miss an episode that way. The email should also contain the subscribers-only unlisted YouTube link for the extended video version too. It will also be in the show notes in your podcast player.
youtube.com/embed/nxHFsQSVRkE?…

• ⁠Get your subscriber code and tickets for the live event here⁠
• ⁠A CBP Agent Wore Meta Smart Glasses to an Immigration Raid in Los Angeles⁠
• ⁠Voiceover Artists Weigh the 'Faustian Bargain' of Lending Their Talents to AI⁠
• ⁠Feds Used Local Cop's Password to Do Immigration Surveillance With Flock Cameras⁠
• ⁠Congress Launches Investigation into Flock After 404 Media Reporting⁠

The 404 Media Podcast

Tech News Podcast · Updated Weekly · Welcome to the podcast from 404 Media where Joseph, Sam, Emanuel, and Jason catch you up on the stories we published this week. 404 Media is a journalist-owned digital media company exploring the way …

^{Apple Podcasts}

404 Media

2025-08-13 12:55:58

LAPD Eyes ‘GeoSpy’, an AI Tool That Can Geolocate Photos in Seconds

📄
This article was primarily reported using public records requests. We are making it available to all readers as a public service. FOIA reporting can be expensive, please consider subscribing to 404 Media to support this work. Or send us a one time donation via our tip jar here.

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has shown interest in using GeoSpy, a powerful AI tool that can pinpoint the location of photos based on features such as the soil, architecture, and other identifying features, according to emails obtained by 404 Media. The news also comes as GeoSpy’s founder shared a video showing how the tool can be used in relation to undocumented immigrants in sanctuary cities, and specifically Los Angeles.

The emails provide the first named case of a law enforcement agency showing clear interest in the tool. GeoSpy can also let law enforcement determine what home or building, down to the specific address, a photo came from, in some cases including photos taken inside with no windows or view of the street.

“Let’s start with one seat/license (me),” an October 2024 email from an LAPD official to Graylark Technologies, the company behind GeoSpy, reads. The LAPD official is from the agency’s Robbery-Homicide division, according to the email. 404 Media obtained the emails through a public records request with the LAPD.

Upgrade to continue reading

Become a paid member to get access to all premium content
Upgrade

LAPD Eyes ‘GeoSpy’, an AI Tool That Can Geolocate Photos in Seconds

^{Joseph Cox (404 Media)}