“A disclosure, even with redactions, will reveal whether or not a safety clearance was granted with or with out circumstances or a waiver,” DCSA argued.
In the end, DCSA did not show that Musk risked “embarrassment or humiliation” not provided that the general public discovered what particular circumstances or waivers utilized to Musk’s clearances but in addition if there have been any circumstances or waivers in any respect, Cote wrote.
Three instances that DCSA cited to assist this place—together with a case the place victims of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking scheme had a considerable privateness curiosity in non-disclosure of detailed data—don’t assist the federal government’s logic, Cote stated. The choose defined that the disclosures wouldn’t have affected the privateness rights of any third events, emphasizing that “Musk’s diminished privateness curiosity is underscored by the restricted info plaintiffs sought of their FOIA request.”
Musk’s X posts discussing his occasional use of prescription ketamine and his disclosure on a podcast that smoking marijuana prompted NASA necessities for random drug testing, Cote wrote, “solely improve” the general public’s curiosity in how Musk’s safety clearances have been vetted. Moreover, Musk has posted about talking with Vladimir Putin, prompting substantial public curiosity in how his international contacts could or could not limit his safety clearances. Greater than 2 million individuals seen Musk’s X posts on these topics, the choose wrote, noting that:
It’s undisputed that drug use and international contacts are two components DCSA considers when figuring out whether or not to impose circumstances or waivers on a safety clearance grant. DCSA fails to clarify why, given Musk’s personal, in depth disclosures, the mere disclosure {that a} situation or waiver exists (or that no situation or waiver exists) would topic him to ’embarrassment or humiliation.’
Reasonably, for the general public, “the checklist of Musk’s safety clearances, together with any circumstances or waivers, might present significant perception into DCSA’s efficiency of that responsibility and responses to Musk’s admissions, if any,” Cote wrote.
In a footnote, Cote stated that this substantial public curiosity existed earlier than Musk grew to become a particular authorities worker, ruling that DCSA was improper to dam the disclosures in search of info on Musk as a serious authorities contractor. Her ruling seemingly paves the best way for the NYT or different information organizations to submit FOIA requests for a listing of Musk’s clearances whereas he helmed DOGE.
It isn’t instantly clear when the NYT will obtain the checklist they requested in 2024, however the authorities has till October 17 to request redactions earlier than it is publicized.
“The Occasions introduced this case as a result of the general public has a proper to learn about how the federal government conducts itself,” Charlie Stadtlander, an NYT spokesperson, stated. “The choice reaffirms that basic precept and we sit up for receiving the doc at difficulty.”
