(The Center Square) - The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) has let some much-needed sunlight into the opaque corridors of federal bureaucracy. Thanks to this landmark 1967 legislation, any person or organization has the right to request access to federal records and receive a response within 20 business days.

The Taxpayers Protection Alliance Foundation (TPAF) had a banner year in making FOIA requests, submitting more than 30 queries for information and obtaining valuable insights into the inner workings of government. These critical tidbits of information are invaluable in the fight to keep government small and accountable to taxpayers and consumers. TPAF will keep fighting the good fight in 2025 and utilize FOIA responses to keep bureaucracy honest.

TPAF hit the ground running in 2024, targeting agencies such as the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the General Services Administration (GSA), the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and the United States Postal Service (USPS) in its FOIA requests. Multiple requests targeted the IRS’ Direct File program, which alarmingly offers to complete returns (read: minimize deductions and maximize liability) on taxpayers’ behalf. The IRS had reported suspiciously high rates of user satisfaction with a glitch-prone government website, and TPAF was eager to obtain the full array of Direct File user reviews. On May 30, TPAF sent a FOIA to the GSA asking for: "All respondent-written feedback (i.e., open-ended responses) on the Direct File pilot program collected by the Direct File Touchpoints Survey between March 19, 2024 and April 21, 2024." TPAF’s understanding was that GSA administered that survey on behalf of the IRS, which is why the watchdog chose GSA as the FOIA starting point.

The FOIA got passed along to the IRS, which sat on the request past its statutory deadline to answer. The agency ultimately released 465 pages of user survey response data to TPAF, containing close to 13,300 open-ended comments submitted to the IRS as part of the user survey. More than 20 percent of these comments were negative. As a Politico overview of the FOIA response noted, “Some users ... complained that Direct File would crash, causing them to lose time and progress; that their refunds were lower than in previous years using other preparers; that the chat option was faulty; and that the program didn’t work well on certain internet browsers.” It’s hard to reconcile this level of dissatisfaction with the IRS’ rosy claim of a 90 percent user satisfaction rating. TPAF succeeded in keeping the IRS honest and will continue to fight against the Direct File boondoggle.

TPAF has even been able to use FOIA requests to hold global taxpayer-funded bureaucracies accountable. Last July, the World Health Organization’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) released a grave assessment calling the non-sugar sweetener aspartame (found in plenty of diet drinks) “possibly carcinogenic to humans.” Health experts have pushed back on this finding, calling the research behind the review “flawed.” At the same time, the WHO and the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Joint Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) published their own, more nuanced assessment of the sweetener.

TPAF was curious to see how federal food regulators felt about these assessments and submitted a FOIA to find out more. The FOIA response painted an interesting picture. After receiving the WHO’s mixed messages on aspartame, U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regulator Mary Frances Lowe was understandably upset. She wrote to her colleagues that the WHO had “[d]isappointing risk communication.” From then on, the FDA took the lead in undoing the damage caused by IARC and convincing the public and media that JECFA had gotten the science correct. FDA employee Shruti Kabadi noted in a July 14 email, “JECFA concluded that there was no concern carcinogenicity of oral exposure to aspartame in animals. There was no concern for genotoxicity of oral exposure to aspartame. The evidence of association of aspartame consumption and cancer in humans is not convincing.” Her colleague Sabine Francke quickly wrote to Shruti: “I saw the Jecfa report – excellent rebuttal to the IARC attempt!! Science prevailed.” This FOIA response made it abundantly clear that the taxpayer-funded IARC takes shortcuts with scientific research to the detriment of consumers and the federal regulatory process.

Unfortunately, not all of TPAF’s requests were met with success. Agencies such as the USPS and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau are fond of rejecting requests that they deem “overbroad,” even though it would be impossible to be more specific without access to the clarifying information being sought. This catch-22 has proven challenging, but TPAF will continue pursuing this information and holding bureaucracies accountable.

TPAF is poised to have another banner year for FOIA requests in 2025. The fight for honesty and transparency in government is just beginning.