The bill would require federal offices to disclose COINTELPRO records within six months of enactment, with narrow exceptions where disclosure would clearly cause harm. It creates a centralized COINTELPRO Records Collection at the Archivist of the United States and orders the Archivist to publish a subject guide and index for easier search and understanding.
It also establishes a new COINTELPRO Records Review Board to review disputed disclosures and make recommendations on whether records should be fully or partially released, subject to written procedures and potential overrides by senior officials. Finally, the bill sets up a process for eventual full public disclosure of all records (within 25 years) unless a legally defined harm-based exemption applies, and it directs ongoing reporting and oversight of the Board’s activities.
At a Glance
What It Does
Not later than six months after enactment, federal offices must disclose COINTELPRO records to the public, subject to narrowly defined harm-based exemptions. Where full disclosure isn’t appropriate, offices must consult with the originating body to disclose segregable information, substitutes, or a summary. A COINTELPRO Records Collection will be established at the National Archives.
Who It Affects
Federal offices holding COINTELPRO records, the Archivist and National Archives, researchers, historians, and public accountability organizations, as well as victims or next of kin to events described in COINTELPRO materials.
Why It Matters
It creates a formal, independent process for releasing COINTELPRO materials, supporting historical accountability and public understanding while attempting to balance legitimate security and privacy concerns.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill begins by mandating that federal offices publicly disclose COINTELPRO records within six months of enactment, unless a narrowly defined harm assessment justifies withholding. It defines what would count as harm and lays out the criteria for partial disclosure—segregable information, substitute records, or summaries, all to be disclosed after consultation with the originating body.
If a full release isn’t appropriate, the records are sent to the COINTELPRO Records Review Board for review and a recommended disposition.
To institutionalize disclosure, the bill requires the Archivist to establish a COINTELPRO Records Collection at the National Archives within 60 days of enactment. The Collection will house copies of disclosed records, any material already publicly available before enactment, and all Review Board records transmitted as required by the Act, along with a published subject guide and index.
The COINTELPRO Records Review Board is created as an independent executive-branch entity consisting of five presidential appointees who must be confirmed by the Senate. The Board has authority to compel information, receive materials from agencies, and issue hearings and oaths.
Its role is to review partially disclosed records and to issue recommendations to determine whether disclosure should be increased, postponed, or completed, subject to a formal override process by high-level officials if warranted. The Board is designed to operate with rapid staff support, security clearances, and a clear sunset timeline, with annual and final reporting to Congress and the President.
The Act also contemplates broader disclosures, including potential access to court materials and grand jury materials under court order, and requires ongoing reporting on expenditures and progress toward completing the disclosure mission. It sets out the rules of construction to ensure the Act takes precedence for disclosure decisions, while still recognizing privacy rules and existing statutory authorities.
Finally, it designates a specific federal building name change to reflect a broader accountability ethos.”
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill requires COINTELPRO records to be publicly disclosed within six months after enactment, unless a harm-based exemption applies.
Partial disclosure is allowed when full release would cause harm, including segregable information, substitutes, or summaries after consultation with the originating body.
A COINTELPRO Records Collection will be established at the National Archives, including copies of disclosed records and a published subject guidebook and index.
The COINTELPRO Records Review Board will consist of five presidential appointees and have authority to review disclosures, subpoena information, and issue recommendations to the President and Congress.
If records are not fully disclosed within 25 years, the Act requires full disclosure unless exemptions apply, with an override mechanism and protections for sensitive information.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Public disclosure of COINTELPRO records
This section requires heads of government offices to disclose COINTELPRO records to the public within six months of enactment, unless a determination is made that disclosure would clearly and demonstrably cause harm. Where disclosure is not complete, the section provides a path for partial disclosure—segregable information, substitute records, or a summary—after consultation with the originating body. If partial disclosure occurs, the record is transmitted to the COINTELPRO Records Review Board for further review under section 4.
COINTELPRO Records Collection at the National Archives
This section directs the Archivist to establish a COINTELPRO Records Collection within 60 days of enactment. The collection must preserve the records’ integrity, publish a subject guide and index, and establish criteria for metadata when transferring copies from other government offices. All records transmitted that can be partially or fully disclosed should be included, along with materials already publicly available before enactment.
Establishment and powers of the COINTELPRO Records Review Board
The Act creates an independent COINTELPRO Records Review Board in the executive branch. The Board reviews government-office determinations to partially disclose COINTELPRO records and makes recommendations on disclosure outcomes—fully, partially, or not at all—based on whether records constitute COINTELPRO material and potential harm.
COINTELPRO Records Review Board personnel
This section lays out the composition and staffing rules for the Board, including the appointment of a Chief of Staff and supporting personnel, security-clearance requirements, and conflict-of-interest safeguards. It also requires security-clearance processing to be accelerated and sets compensation and travel provisions.
Review of records by the COINTELPRO Records Review Board
During review, custody of records remains with the originating government office unless the Board directs transfer to the Archivist for public release. The Board issues notices and prepares reports detailing its actions, justifications, and any postponed disclosures, and it may require copies of records for full disclosure.
Disclosure of other information and additional study
This section authorizes the Review Board to seek court-relief to release information held under seal, including grand jury materials, and sets a 45-day response deadline from the Attorney General. It also urges cross-agency cooperation to unseal relevant COINTELPRO information and to pursue further study as needed.
Rules of construction
The Act takes precedence for disclosure decisions over other laws to the extent allowed by the Constitution and existing privacy protections. It preserves FOIA rights, allows judicial review, and confirms that existing authorities to disclose records are not vitiated.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Government across all five countries.
Explore Government in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Historians and researchers gain a centralized, searchable COINTELPRO Records Collection and subject-index for in-depth study.
- Civil rights advocates and accountability groups obtain a formal mechanism to review and monitor disclosures, enhancing transparency around past government surveillance activities.
- Victims and families affected by COINTELPRO-era events receive earlier notice of disclosures before records are made public, when feasible.
- Archivists and the National Archives benefit from a structured process that standardizes transmission, preservation, and public access to records.
- Policy analysts and watchdog organizations gain a clearer picture of historical government activity, aiding oversight and accountability.
Who Bears the Cost
- Federal offices and agencies that hold COINTELPRO records must allocate resources to process disclosures and metadata, and to participate in Board reviews.
- National Archives will incur costs associated with expanding the COINTELPRO Collection, indexing, and digitization prioritization.
- The Review Board and its staff require funding for personnel, security clearances, and administrative operations.
- Living individuals whose privacy interests could be implicated may face disclosure constraints, requiring careful handling under the harm standard and exemptions.
- Researchers and institutions may face initial delays as the Board implements new procedures and metadata standards.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between ensuring robust public access to COINTELPRO records for historical accountability and protecting national security and personal privacy, all while building a new, independent governance structure with clear rules, timelines, and oversight.
The bill carefully structures a balance between transparency and safeguards but raises practical questions. Implementing a nationwide, centralized collection and a new independent board will require substantial funding, staffing, and interagency coordination.
The harm standard, while necessary to protect national security and privacy, could be invoked broadly or inconsistently, potentially delaying access to historically important materials. The override mechanisms provide a safeguard against outright withholding, but they also introduce political and procedural complexity that could slow disclosures.
Finally, the process hinges on robust metadata, standardized procedures, and timely cooperation across federal, state, and local entities to be truly effective.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.