New York Times Co. v. CIA, No. 17-06354, 2018 WL 3222536 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2018) (Carter, J.)

New York Times Co. v. CIA, No. 17-06354, 2018 WL 3222536 (S.D.N.Y. June 29, 2018) (Carter, J.)

Re:  Request for records related to an alleged covert CIA operation to arm and train Syrian rebels

Disposition:  Granting defendant's motion for summary judgment; denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment

Exemption 1, Exemption 3, Glomar: In discussing the President's tweets and other public statements about the alleged arms program, the court finds "President Trump did not make an unequivocal statement, or any statement for that matter, indicating he was declassifying information."  "[T]he Court holds that (1) absent an unequivocal statement of declassification from the President or exceptional circumstances that are not present here, the Court will not infer whether the President's statements have the legal effect of declassifying information; and (2) President Trump's public statements in this case do not rise to the level of an unequivocal statement of declassification."   

The court then considers whether the public statements officially acknowledged the records requested, holding that "President Trump's tweet does not confirm the existence of the records being requested let alone the program."  Additionally, "President Trump's statements [to the media outlet] are similarly ambiguous and lack the requisite specificity to be considered an official acknowledgment." 

Even if "President Trump's statements officially acknowledge the existence of a covert program to arm and train Syrian rebels," the court explains, "a general acknowledgment of the existence of a program alone does not wholesale waive an agency’s ability to invoke Glomar where certain aspects of the program remain undisclosed."  Additionally, statements by an official from another agency "lack the degree of detail [needed] and thus, do not defeat the CIA's Glomar response."

The court upholds the defendant's Glomar response on the basis of Exemptions 1 and 3 in referencing the defendant's declarations to conclude "that revealing whether or not responsive records exist in connection with an alleged program to arm and train Syrian rebels would lead to an unauthorized disclosure of intelligence sources and methods."