DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Washington DC 20420
May 6, 2025
In Reply Refer To: 001B
FOIA Request: 25-18649-F
Via Email: patrick@vetsedsuccess.org
Mr. Patrick Campbell
Veterans Education Success
3218 Wynford Dr.
Fairfax, VA 22031
Dear Mr. Campbell,
This is the Initial Agency Decision (IAD) to your April 10, 2025 Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request. You sought access to records “related to personnel reductions, terminations, reassignments, or restructuring within VA from January 20, 2025, to the present.” Your request was received by the VA FOIA Service on April 22, 2025 and assigned FOIA tracking number 25-18649-F.
Initial Agency Decision
The Office of the Secretary (OSVA) conducted searches in the Office of the Secretary and the Human Resources Administration (HRA). The searches produced 370 pages of documents which are being withheld in full pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5 (5 U.S.C. §§ 552 (b)(5)) which is posted online in the VA FOIA Library (RIF Plan). Because your search and review time was within the 2-hour limit, you were not assessed any fees.
FOIA Exemption 5 exempts from disclosure “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(5). Under the deliberative process privilege, OSVA withheld information in the documents that was pre-decisional and deliberative or reflected preliminary discussions, deliberations, recommendations, comments, opinions or proposed language permits an agency to withhold material reflecting the thoughts, opinions, and recommendations of federal officials reviewing an issue or draft document, as well draft documents themselves. The information contained in the responsive records is both pre-decisional and deliberative because it reflects preliminary discussions, deliberations, recommendations, comments, opinions, proposed language, and draft letters and documents on VA programs. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Serv. v. Sierra Club, Inc., 592 U.S. __, 141 S. Ct. 777, at *1 (Mar. 4, 2021) (“the privilege protects in-house drafts that proved to be the agencies’ last word about a proposal’s potential threat to endangered species. We hold that it does.”); Access Reports v. DOJ, 926 F.2d 1192, 1196-97 (D.C. Cir. 1991) (“talking points” memoranda are pre-decisional); ACLU v. DHS, 738 F. Supp. 2d 93, 112 (D.D.C. 2010) (“’talking points’ are pre-decisional . . . the document itself suggests that a public statement was anticipated at the time of its creation, and given that no official statement has yet been made, the talking points remain ripe recommendations that are ready for adoption or rejection by the Department”); Sec. Fin. Life Ins. Co., No. 03-102-SBC, 2005 WL 839543, at *11 (D.D.C. Apr. 12, 2005) (“The undisputed evidence establishes that these [talking points] are deliberative.”); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Commerce, 337 F. Supp. 2d 146, 174 (D.D.C. 2004) (protecting “talking points” and recommendations on how to answer questions); St. Louis Sewer Dist., No. 10-2103, at *18 (E.D. Mo. Mar. 2, 2012) (protecting e-mail communications, “press releases, talking points and ‘Q & A,'” drafts, and briefing materials); Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Wash. v. DHS, 514 F. Supp. 2d 36, 44 (D.D.C. 2007) (protecting briefing materials concerning Hurricane Katrina response including proposed “solutions and approaches”); Judicial Watch, Inc. v. DOE, 310 F. Supp. 2d 271, 317 (D.D.C. 2004) (protecting briefing materials for Secretary of the Interior), aff’d in part, rev’d in part on other grounds & remanded, 412 F.3d 125, 133 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Klunzinger v. IRS, 27 F. Supp. 2d 1015, 1026 (W.D. 1998) (protecting paper to brief commissioner for meeting); Thompson v. Dep’t of the Navy, No. 95-347, 1997 WL 527344, at *4 (D.D.C. Aug. 18, 1997) (protecting materials to brief senior officials responding to media inquiries, as “disclosure of materials reflecting the process by which the Navy formulates its policy concerning statements to and interactions with the press” could stifle frank communication within the agency), aff’d, No. 97-5292, 1998 WL 202253, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Mar. 11, 1998) (per curiam); Williams v. DOJ, 556 F. Supp. 63, 65 (D.D.C. 1982) (protecting “briefing papers prepared for the Attorney General prior to an appearance before a congressional committee”).
In this case, OSVA withheld the memorandum which includes VA job position data by office in addition to the proposed plans for the VA reduction in force and reorganization. In addition, in the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, the Freedom of Information Act provides that a federal agency or department (hereinafter “agency “) may withhold responsive records only if: (1) the agency reasonably foresees that disclosure would harm an interest protected by one of the nine exemptions that FOIA enumerates; or (2) disclosure is prohibited by law. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(8)(A)(i). The foreseeable harm standard was applied while reviewing these records and applying FOIA exemption 5.
FOIA Mediation
As part of the 2007 FOIA amendments, the Office of Government Information Services (OGIS) was created to offer mediation services to resolve disputes between FOIA requesters and
Federal agencies as a non-exclusive alternative to litigation. Using OGIS services does not affect your right to pursue litigation. Under the provisions of the FOIA Improvement Act of 2016, the following contact information is provided to assist FOIA requesters in resolving disputes:
VA Central Office FOIA Public Liaison:
VACO FOIA Service
Email Address: FOIAHelp@va.gov
Office of Government Information Services (OGIS)
Email Address: ogis@nara.gov
Mailing address:
National Archives and Records Administration 8601 Adelphi Road
College Park, MD 20740-6001
FOIA Appeal
This concludes OSVA’s Initial Agency Decision to request 25-18649-F. Please be advised that should you desire to do so; you may appeal the determination made in this response to:
Appeal by email: OGCfoiaappeals@va.gov
Office of General Counsel (024)
Department of Veterans Affairs
810 Vermont Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20420
If you should choose to file an appeal, please include a copy of this letter with your written appeal and clearly indicate the basis for your disagreement with the determination set forth in this response. Please be advised that in accordance with VA’s implementing FOIA regulations at 38 C.F.R. § 1.559, your appeal must be postmarked no later than ninety (90) days of the date of this letter.
Sincerely,
Regina Olanegan
OSVA FOIA Officer