August 14, 2026

 

VIA ONLINE PORTAL

 

Pamela Andrews

Deputy Chief

OSD/JS FOIA Requester Service Center

Office of Freedom of Information

1155 Defense Pentagon

Washington, D.C. 20301-1155

 

Dear Deputy Chief Andrews:

 

      This is a request on behalf of ----- R----- (“Ms. R-----”), ----- F----- (“Ms. F-----”), and Hope Seck (“Ms. Seck”)(collectively referred to as the “Requesters”) under the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U.S.C. § 552, for copies of records in the possession of the Department of Defense (“DoD”).

 

      In January 2026, the media reported that Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel Anthony Tata (“Secretary Tata”) had ordered a six-month assessment of the “effectiveness” of women serving in ground-combat positions. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2026/01/07/dod-launches-review-of-effectiveness-of-women-in-ground-combat-roles/ (last accessed August 13, 2026); https://www.npr.org/2026/01/06/nx-s1-5667583/pentagon-review-women-in-ground-combat-roles (last accessed August 13, 2026). Although the assessment was originally set to be performed by the Institute for Defense Analyses (“IDA”), it has since been re-awarded to the John Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory (“JHU APL”). https://www.militarytimes.com/news/pentagon-congress/2026/04/14/pentagons-women-in-combat-review-reassigned-deadline-extended/ (last accessed August 13, 2026). The assessment was designed to occur over the course of twelve months, with a completion date of on or around April 2027. Id.

 

 

      The Requesters are seeking the following categories of records:

 

1. A copy of the official memorandum that was signed and executed by Secretary Tata and authorized the commission of the assessment. It is the Requesters’ understanding that the memorandum was issued in or around December 2025;

 

1. Any and all documentation that memorialized the original contract issued to IDA for completion of the assessment and related records, including, but not limited to, Statement(s) of Work, Performance Work Statement(s), Statement(s) of Objectives, and Contract Data Requirement Lists;

 

1. Any and all documentation that memorialized the transition of authorized work on the assessment from IDA to JHU APL; and,

 

1. Any and all documentation that memorialized the new contract issued to JHU APL for completion of the assessment and related records, including, but not limited to, Statement(s) of Work, Performance Work Statement(s), Statement(s) of Objectives, and Contract Data Requirement Lists.

 

Given that the assessment remains ongoing, this FOIA request should be construed to exclude any records reflecting the raw data that has been compiled to date.

 

      Please note that we reasonably anticipate that responsive records would be located at – and portions (if not the entirety) of this FOIA request may need to consequently be referred to – the Defense Contract Audit Agency (“DCAA”), Defense Contract Management Agency (“DCMA”), and the Defense Finance and Accounting Service (“DFAS”). To the extent that DoD identifies other component entities reasonably likely to maintain responsive records, we respectfully request that it refer this FOIA request (in whole or in part) to those component entities for direct response to us and to advise our office of that action.

 

Additionally, for purposes of its searches, DoD (and any component entities to which it refers portions of this FOIA request) should construe the scope of relevant U.S. Government officials to encompass federal civilian employees, detailees, political appointees, Constitutional officers, and contract staff. The searches should include, but not be limited to, e-mail communications on unclassified and classified systems, as well as records stored on individual hard drives, shared drives, and on any non-U.S. Government equipment that U.S. Government officials were using to conduct U.S. Government business. The definition of records should be construed to include, but not be limited to, e-mails, texts, Slack messages, memoranda, cables, and written memorialization of verbal discussions. Additionally, for purposes of its searches, DoD should construe “IDA” and “JHU APL” to encompass the employees, officers, directors, and consultants supporting those two individual organizations, respectively.

 

      The scope of the searches should not be limited to DoD-originated records and should also include records that are currently in the possession of any U.S. Government contractor for purposes of records management. We are pre-emptively waiving any objection to the redaction of the names of any U.S. Government officials at or below a GS-13 series civilian or equivalent contractor position.

 

      In terms of all other third parties who work or worked for the U.S. Government and whose names appear in records responsive to this request, we submit that the privacy interests of those individuals have been diminished by virtue of their involvement in one or more of the U.S. Government functions described above as falling within the scope of this request. There is a recognized inverse relationship between the position of authority that a government employee holds and the strength of that employee’s privacy interests. See Stern v. FBI, 737 F.2d 84, 92 (D.C. Cir. 1984); Jefferson v. Dep’t of Justice, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26782, *11 (D.D.C.

Nov. 14, 2003); see also Perlman v. Dep’t of Justice, 312 F.3d 100, 107-109 (2d. Cir. 2002) (setting forth five factors to consider in weighing government employee’s privacy interests against public interest in disclosure, including employee’s rank and whether information sheds light on a government activity).

 

      The work performed by these U.S. Government third parties (whether they be Government officials or contractors) was part of their official responsibilities on behalf of the U.S. Government and was not of a personal nature. They served in a position of trust and authority to, among other things, negotiate contractual agreements with third party organizations to perform a readiness review of women serving in ground combat roles. Given that responsive records memorializing the work they performed will shed light on government activity, particularly the scope of authority provided to IDA/JHU APL and range of information to which the contracts afforded them access, it would be reasonable to conclude that the relevant third parties’ respective (and diminished) privacy interests are outweighed by the public interest in disclosure of the information indexed to their name.[1]

 

The Requesters submit that they qualify for designation for news media status. Ms. R----- and Ms. F------ work for and are serving as requesters on behalf of The Women in the Service Coalition, Inc. (“WSCI”). The WSCI is a 501(c)(3), nonprofit organization dedicated to advocating for women and men in military service, and developing qualified women leaders to serve in the Armed Forces and contribute to the national security objectives of the United States. https://www.wiscimil.org/aboutus (last accessed August 13, 2026). Ms. Heck, for her part, is an award-winning freelance reporter and editor who has covered the U.S. military and security issues since 2009. She served as the Managing Editor of Military.com from 2018 to 2021, and she has further written articles that have appeared in USA Today, The Washington Post, Popular Mechanics, POLITICO Magazine, and the Military Times. In 2025, she received a New house School Mirror Award for her in-depth reporting work. She has already conducted reporting on this very subject at issue in this FOIA request. https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2026/06/26/debate-over-women-in-combat-prompts-ndaa-battles/ (last accessed August 14, 2026).

 

      The Requesters have the ability to disseminate information on a wide scale and intend to use information obtained through this FOIA request in an original work, particularly through news articles or video productions published by Ms. Heck. According to 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(A)(ii), the term ‘a representative of the news media’ means any person or entity that gathers information of potential interest to a segment of the public, uses its editorial skills to turn the raw materials into a distinct work, and distributes that work to an audience.

 

The Requesters have sufficiently demonstrated their intent and ability to publish or otherwise disseminate information to the public. See Nat’l Security Archive v. Dep’t of Defense, 880 F.2d 1381, 1386 (D.C. Cir. 1989).         

 

      Furthermore, the Requesters request a waiver of – or at least a reduction in – any assessed fees. The records responsive to this FOIA request (if any) clearly qualify as information regarding U.S. Government activity that the public has a significant need to know. Responsive records would clarify parameters being applied to the assessment, which has the potential to significantly impact the future role of women serving in ground combat roles (if any).

     

      In the event that fees are ultimately assessed, do not incur expenses beyond $25 without first contacting our office for authorization.

 

      Finally, the Requesters are seeking expedited processing of their FOIA request. FOIA permits expedited processing when a “compelling need” exists. 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v). Specifically, “compelling need” means “with respect to a request made by a person primarily engaged in disseminating information, urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.” Id. at § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II).

 

      There should be no dispute there is a significant public interest in and importance to the assessment being conducted, as required by Secretary Tata. The assessment, being conducted approximately one decade after the lifting of restrictions on women serving in ground combat roles, has the potential to substantially impact the degree to which women serving in the Armed Forces are allowed to continue serving their country in the same manner as their male colleagues. It has become a subject of ongoing scrutiny by Congress in recent months, with legislative amendments being proposed by Members of both political parties in anticipation of the assessment’s possible findings and amid concerns that the assessment is designed to reach a pre-determined ideological outcome. See [article] (last accessed August 14, 2026);  [article] (last accessed August 14, 2026); [article] (last accessed August 14, 2026). It is axiomatic that there is a real and urgent need to inform the public regarding how this assessment is being conducted – and the extent to which it is being designed with a political purpose – prior to any potential changes or modifications being made to DoD policies in reliance upon its ultimate findings.

 

      Pursuant to the statutory requirements, as well as Heritage Foundation v. CIA, 2025 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26373 (D.D.C. Feb. 13, 2025), I hereby certify, consistent with 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(vi), that this compelling need statement is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

 

      Pursuant to statute, your office has ten calendar days, or until on or before August 24, 2025, to respond to our request for expedited processing. Failure to do so, or a denial of our request, will lead to the filing of a civil action before the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

      If DoD denies all or part of this request, please cite the specific exemptions you believe justify your refusal to release the information or permit the review and notify us of your appeal procedures available under the law. We request that any documents or records produced in response to this request be provided in electronic (soft-copy) form wherever possible.  Acceptable formats are .pdf, .jpg, .gif or .tif.  Please provide soft-copy records by e-mail or on a CD if e-mail is not feasible. The Requesters do not agree to pay an additional fee to receive records on a CD, and in the instance that such a fee is required, please notify us first of the cost.

 

      Your cooperation in this matter would be appreciated.  If you wish to discuss this request, please do not hesitate to contact me at XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

 

​

                                                                              Sincerely,

                                                                             

                                                                                    /s/

 

                                                                              Bradley P. Moss

 

[1] We acknowledge, of course, that some redactions or narrowly focused withholdings might ultimately be appropriate as DoD processes the responsive records.

​