Last week the Second Circuit US Federal Appeals Court upheld a lower court ruling that agencies have the right to “neither confirm nor deny” that they possess sensitive documents—a tactic, informally known as the “The Glomar Response.” The court ruled that National Security Agency and US Department of Justice are allowed to “neither confirm nor deny” that they possess documents detailing the secret surveillance of communications between lawyers and their clients at Guantanamo Bay. The National Security Archive filed an amicus brief on behalf of the plaintiffs, arguing that “The government justified its Glomar Response with generalized and abstract explanations that are insufficient to carry the government’s burden of justifying its refusal to confirm or deny.”
The Glomar Response is different than a regular FOIA denial—when an agency states that it has the records but that it will not release them. When an agency replies with a Glomar Response, it refuses even to admit that documents exist; this makes research (and the appeals process) much more difficult. Today we’ll do a quick overview of the ins and outs of this FOIA “Catch-22.”
So… what the heck is a “Glomar?” The term comes from a very large ship named the Glomar Explorer built by the CIA with help from Howard Hughes. In 1968 it was used in “Operation Jennifer,” an attempt to recover a sunken Soviet submarine. Seymour Hersh, of the New York Times sniffed a story, but the CIA successfully convinced The Times to suppress publication. A year later a journalist, Ann Phillippi, filed a FOIA request for documents about the Glomar Explorer and the CIA’s attempts to censor press coverage. The CIA, citing FOIA law, claimed it could “neither confirm nor deny” that documents about either the ship or the censorship existed. The name stuck.
The two types of requests most commonly “Glomar’ed” are requests about national security intelligence information and requests which the agency feels may invade an individual’s privacy. Typically, Glomar requests are hard to appeal, but here are some strategies which the Archive has found somewhat effective:
- Argue prior disclosure. If you can show that the information “neither confirmed nor denied” has already been disclosed, the agency may release it. Take a look at official statements or testimony about the matter you are interested in and see whether you can find something that can be characterized as a public disclosure. Look at other documents you have obtained or books written by former officials. Keep in mind, that these previously disclosed documents must be virtually identical the Glomar’ed document, and must have been released through a documented official disclosure, not public speculation or a leak.
- Refile with a broader scope. If an agency has publicly acknowledged something, it cannot Glomar the request. So, one strategy is to find a broad subject which the agency has publicly acknowledged (i.e., warrantless wiretapping) and refile your request in the hope the documents you desire will fall under the scope of this broad, previously disclosed, subject.
- Finally, a successful Glomar appeal does not necessarily mean that the documents will be released. It is likely that the agency will admit that the documents exist, and then deny their release due to another FOIA exemption. Still, knowing that specific documents exist and which exemptions were used to deny them makes the appeals process easier.
If you encounter a privacy Glomar, you also might consider FOIA Tip Number 3, which discusses how to ask for information about individuals.
I can “neither confirm nor deny” that Glomar responses can be tricky obstacles for FOIA requesters to navigate.
UNREDACTED: The National Security Archive Blog 
54 responses to “FOIA Tip No. 7—The Glomar Response”
[…] NOTE: You may receive a regular FOIA denial in which an agency refuses to release records or a Glomar Response, when an agency refuses to admit that documents exist. Find out how to be your own advocate with these tips. […]
[…] the Glomar response about FOIA requests referred by other agencies, even when these requests are marked […]
[…] regulation would have been a strengthening of what has become known as a “Glomar response“, named after a ruling that allowed the government to withhold information about the Soviet […]
[…] law would have been a strengthening of what has turn famous as a “Glomar response“, named after a statute that authorised a supervision to secrete information about a Soviet […]
[…] regulation would have been a strengthening of what has become known as a “Glomar response“, named after a ruling that allowed the government to withhold information about the Soviet […]
[…] government can withhold those documents under one of the exemptions, or it could issue a “Glomar” response “neither conforming nor denying the existence” of those […]
[…] The broad power to kill claimed by the government requires informed public debate and judicial oversight. But, despite these extensive public disclosures, the government continues to tell the courts that its drone program is so secret it can’t even admit to its existence. You can read the sworn statement from the CIA’s representative here, in which she says, “An official CIA acknowledgment that confirms or denies the existence or nonexistence of records responsive to Plaintiffs’ FOIA request would reveal, among other things, whether or not the CIA is involved in drone strikes or at least has an intelligence interest in drone strikes.” (This is known as a “Glomar” response.) […]
[…] спецслужб США существует специальный термин — «ответ Glomar» — в котором Агентство не подтверждает, но и не […]
[…] response, the NSA invoked a so-called “Glomar” response, in which the agency neither confirmed nor denied the existence of records on the topic at all. […]
[…] response, the NSA invoked a so-called “Glomar” response, in which the agency neither confirmed nor denied the existence of records on the topic at all. […]
[…] response, the NSA invoked a so-called “Glomar” response, in which the agency neither confirmed nor denied the existence of records on the topic at all. […]
Reblogged this on yunasite.
[…] last year with the NSA to find out. On February 28, the NSA responded, issuing what is known as a Glomar response to the FOIA. (The term “Glomar response” came into use after the CIA in 1969 denied a […]
[…] CIA’s position. Since the Phillippi v CIA decision, the term “glomarize” or “glomar response” have become terms of arts to describe the circumstances when the CIA or other agencies claim […]
[…] last year with the NSA to find out. On February 28, the NSA responded, issuing what is known as a Glomar response to the FOIA. (The term “Glomar response” came into use after the CIA in 1969 denied a […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such documents. ” […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response 2014 neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] upheld the CIA’s position. Since the Phillippi v CIA decision, the term “glomarize” or “glomar response” have become terms of arts to describe the circumstances when the CIA or other agencies claim […]
[…] for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] response, the NSA invoked a so-called “Glomar” response, in which the agency neither confirmed nor denied the existence of records on the topic at all. […]
[…] that the information’s mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of a […]
[…] asserting that the information’s mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of a […]
[…] asserting that the information’s mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of a […]
[…] asserting that the information's mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither "confirm nor deny" the existence of a […]
[…] asserting that the information’s mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of a […]
[…] that the information’s mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of a […]
[…] that the information’s mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of a […]
[…] asserting that the information’s mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither “confirm nor deny” the existence of a […]
[…] justification for attacks that killed terrorists and U.S. citizens. The government answered with a Glomar response — neither verifying nor denying that it has such […]
[…] [17] https://nsarchive.wordpress.com/2010/01/07/foia-tip-7-glomar-response/ […]
[…] cuja existência não possa ser nem confirmada nem negada. A palavra foi usada pela primeira vez em 1968, quando a CIA disse a jornalistas que não podia “nem confirmar nem negar” a existência [de um […]
[…] cuja existência não possa ser nem confirmada nem negada. A palavra foi usada pela primeira vez em 1968, quando a CIA disse a jornalistas que não podia “nem confirmar nem negar” a existência [de um […]
[…] cuja existência não possa ser nem confirmada nem negada. A palavra foi usada pela primeira vez em 1968, quando a CIA disse a jornalistas que não podia “nem confirmar nem negar” a existência [de um […]
[…] asserting that the information’s mere existence can neither be confirmed nor denied. The name comes from 1968, when the CIA told journalists it could neither « confirm nor deny » the […]
[…] cuja existência não possa ser nem confirmada nem negada. A palavra foi usada pela primeira vez em 1968, quando a CIA disse a jornalistas que não podia “nem confirmar nem negar” a existência [de um […]
[…] cuja existência não possa ser nem confirmada nem negada. A palavra foi usada pela primeira vez em 1968, quando a CIA disse a jornalistas que não podia “nem confirmar nem negar” a existência [de um […]
[…] intelligence activities.” Rather than performing a search for the requested documents, the CIA glomared (neither confirmed nor denied) his request, saying “the fact of the existence or nonexistence of […]
[…] In the U.S., federal agencies have the right to refuse to tell the requester whether documents do or do not exist in cases where such acknowledgement is itself a sensitive matter. The National Security Archive’s own Nate Jones has written a helpful primer on the “Glomar” response. […]
[…] In the U.S., federal agencies have the right to refuse to tell the requester whether documents do or do not exist in cases where such acknowledgement is itself a sensitive matter. The National Security Archive’s own Nate Jones has written a helpful primer on the “Glomar” response. […]
[…] En los EE.UU., las agencias federales tienen el derecho de negarse a decirle al solicitante si los documentos existen o no existen en los casos en que tal reconocimiento es en sí misma una cuestión sensible. Nate Jones del Archivo de Seguridad Nacional ha escrito un manual útil en la respuesta “Glomar.” […]
[…] water, and I hope these improper Glomar responses are overturned when the requesters appeal. See here for more on how to appeal Glomar responses –the key is showing evidence of when the Glomaring […]
[…] I just did for the program “Radiolab.” It started when I got curious about the term “Glomar Response,” a legal term of art for a type of exemption to releasing information under the Freedom of […]
[…] Despite the declassified memo, NSA still refuses to acknowledge its participation in the Mexico Fusion Center and says that it can neither confirm nor deny the existence or non-existence of records on the subject (the dreaded “Glomar” response). […]
[…] bet you don’t know what The Glomar Response is. Well, if you read (as I think you should)Laura Poitras’s (director of Citizen […]
[…] upheld the CIA’s position. Since the Phillippi v CIA decision, the term “glomarize” or “glomar response” have become terms of arts to describe the circumstances when the CIA or other agencies claim […]