You're assuming you'd get something truthful or informative out of that process, when in reality you'll get the opposite due to the inherit (dis)incentives.
If it meaningfully impacts the public, the public should have input. The input doesn't need to be binding, but it needs to be taken into consideration. Representative government is not a once-every-four-years exercise, nor is it something that should only be accessible to the mega-rich.
There's an entire process for this among many rule-making agencies in every level of government, across the world. It serves as, at minimum, a public record of objections and concerns, and at times that public feedback identifies a problem that the rule-drafters failed to address.
It doesn't, and can't prevent outright malice by a capricious autocrat, who only works to make his backroom friends happy. But it does make a public record of that malice.
If there's no loose budget, there's far fewer things that go into the black budgets.
Because obviously nothing can ever change, so don't even try. How silly of of you citizen, to imagine even trying to fix corruption.
Fixing corruption involves people refusing to put up with corruption.
because it is a public service that we are all funding. why would you think anything otherwise?
But my guess is that less public access to national information helps, and does not hinder, a speed-run to autocracy.
I could more see this as being just random action without any real purpose, or aimed at petty revenge on someone, or something.
... and eventually, privatize the wreckage or cut even more services because it's obviously "not working out".
> I could more see this as being just random action without any real purpose, or aimed at petty revenge on someone, or something.
This was essentially my first point, and I think we are in agreement.
> I dunno. I'm very much not a Trump fan, but I don't see how restricting access to "national information" would help him. And if it would, how does restricting access to one of them help him?
I did not intend to claim that the closure necessarily helps Trump himself. My point was that reducing access to public information (either wholesale, or by placing additional hurdles) hurts democracy and favors autocracy.
He has a record as long as his public life of being capricious, vindictive, and petty. This is ancient, settled history by this point, as clear as the sun rising in the East.
Even if only four researchers out of a hundred or thousand who visit every year complain, if that complaint is caught on camara we have a "Liberal Karen exploiting and abusing federal employees just trying to do their jobs. Why can't she go through the approval process like everyone else?".
And maybe that woman just wanted to research, not be exploited to increase protection for federal services. Maybe she just wanted transparent processes for helping those employees and a public who respected those dedicated public sector workers who help us navigate the system.
Because increased funding for protection of federal workers by that kind of drama scenario does create conservative or authoritarian momentum. Even if it's not reflected as that affiliation on voting cards, it's a deep mindset.
I know in a dozen years the Karen stereotype will be seen as the sexist trope it is. But sometimes we create these feedback systems, inadvertently or purposefully, that reinforce those tropes.
If an organization is a source of inconvenient truth to a ruler, or serves the public without a profit motive, it will be ruined by this administration.
The first step in killing the national archive is making it worthless. Adding extra stupid barriers to access data helps with that goal. The harder it is to use, the more likely a Coca-cola archive sponsored by taco bell will be able to compete.
Protect the holdings of the National Archives from theft, damage, misfiling, and inappropriate disclosure of information.
I also believe in the general public's right to see and access things which relate to government. I'm just trying to point out that whilst this probably is reactive to current affairs (cost management? risks? FUD?) there are reasons and situations outside the USA where this is normal, and I do not mean "has been normalised to disadvantage you" -I just mean that identifying who you are and why you want to do something isn't that unusual, in archive access.
As an 8yo, I'd walk into the US Library of Congress alone and ask for rare books.
I like this way best.
You have to get a library card for the library. I don’t see why there is so much outrage over this, and I think the timing is more about budget cuts than about Trump [caveat- firing the archivist might have been personal].
I find the arguments that “he just wants to sow distrust” etc. are completely unbelievable; he has bigger fish to fry than micromanaging the national archives.
Why do they need a "legitimate business need" to access the material? Why aren't they instead requiring a simple library card and/or identification.
That's why people are upset. This is more than just requiring a library card.
> Until some random crazy person exercises the same right and destroys an irreplaceable rare book.
Every library I've been in with rare books requires supervision by the archivist if you want to browse them. Sometimes only the archivist can handle the book.
The fact that these rare books aren't all being destroyed in mass tells me that this system works pretty well at screening crazy people from destroying books (and, frankly, there's not a whole lot of people dedicated to destroying rare books).
Sure. The LOC librarians never seemed to be out of sight from 8yo me. And they were always happy to get what I asked for. It was a reasonable, functional arrangement.
In considering the LOC's multi-century existence, this parade of horribles never manifested as a meaningful risk. It remains limited to select imaginations.
No you don't. You only need a library card if you want to bring a book home. Anyone can read at the library.
https://www.loc.gov/research-centers/use-the-library/researc...
are you being reductionist on this, and "demanding" that unconstrained access exist as a norm?
I don't find identified purposeful access objectionable. I am concerned at the amount of degredation to works from constant public access to them: its a thing in european museums, cultural exhibits, lasceaux..
That is the main thing I mean by free.
I agree, requiring ID and even appointments is something that isn't objectionable. The issue I have is requiring a justification. Who approves or dismisses justifications? What's considered an invalid justification?
Unconstrained access isn't what I'm talking about, unjustified access is.
When the same energy should have either been applied to all the other administrations
Or only focus on the things that actually are unique
The current administration reduced NARA funding and, in February, dismissed Shogan as "Archivist of the United States" but it appears a plan for a strategic shift was underway before those changes.
1: https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/foia-audit/foia/2024-03-15/us-nati...
2: https://www.archives.gov/press/press-releases/2024/nr24-37
Keep The Lights On?
> All researchers must apply and present a researcher card, which may be obtained in Room 1000. This ensures that proper identification is on file for all individuals accessing the building to establish a legitimate business purpose. Abuse of any researcher registration to circumvent access by the general public may result in a trespass situation and a permanent ban from access to all NARA facilities.
What the hell does "legitimate business purpose" mean? What "business" need is there for JFK Assassination records (which I think are at this site), for example? If I'm getting a PHD or writing a book, is that a "business" need? I suspect not.
Also, "Abuse of any researcher registration to circumvent access by the general public may result in a trespass situation and a permanent ban from access to all NARA facilities" seems like a very poorly constructed sentence.
It suffices to say that it would be hard to justify closing down NARA 2 for researcher access. Room 2000 is the main reading room and it is one of the largest reading rooms I have ever been in. The building was built for people to come and visit and do research.
NARA 2 is a high security facility as it is. The last time that I visited was in 2019. You are searched one time upon entering the building. You (as a researcher) enter and go down to a large basement locker room where you can place most of your items in a locker. You can take a laptop and a scanner/camera to the first floor, get searched another time, then go up an elevator to the Room 2000, get searched again, and then take a seat and request materials (using triplicate forms, the last time I was there). You are searched again upon leaving the reading room.
Based on my experience, it sounds like they are going to remove one of the searches and put it at the entrance rather than at the elevators for the second floor, though I admit this is speculation.
The more difficult aspect would be having no parking access at the facility itself and having to take a bus there. I've taken the Metrobus to NARA 2 before and it was quite complicated the last time I went there, and I generally like public transportation. Every time I visited after that, I drove and parked in the garage, usually on the roof. That said, I can learn to manage the bus.
I imagine this research card policy does two things:
1. Raises an easy bureaucratic barrier for people who just drop in and expect/demand help
2. Gives staff an opportunity to refuse access to people who may have non-research intent from accessing the building
It's likely the example you provided qualifies as a business need. They just don't want you hanging around and getting in the way of them helping people who scheduled a consultation, have an appointment, etc.
Totally agree on the poorly-constructed sentence. I wish they had said it more succinctly/precisely.
But maybe that page is not updated yet with new policy.
My guess is anyone could still pursue whatever crazy theories they wanted, so long as they conducted their research legitimately, i.e., as a legitimate _process_ of research, with no value judgment on the topic or end goal.
I don't see this is that big of a deal. It's open, you can access it, but they are controlling more. Given the propensity for the theft and destruction of archives documents in the past, I'm ok with more security.
Please just make a huge torrent and let everyone take a look.
https://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2016/spring/h...
I thought it was always backed up stuff.
If not, even assuming a 0.1% rate of scroundels over time that must mean thousands of records have been destroyed or stolen or tampered with…
Sometimes if there's a more extensive process to retrieve the record (i.e. your archivist has to talk to a different government entity or agency to get the information) you might get some facsimiles, but often the information is only captured in the physical document that you're looking at. Moreover, to reiterate my point from above, part of the reason that College Park is making this decision (probably) is because it takes time and coordination to get these documents, and they want to ensure that--with limited staff and resources--they're still able to fulfill their mission of providing access to information.
Most of the records that exist under NARA's purview are not backed up at all. There's a major initiative to digitize existing holdings, but that's challenging/fraught with staffing issues. It's basically an under- or un-funded mandate.
If you're interested, there's been a fair amount of theft throughout the history of the agency, and they actually maintain a page on it: https://www.archives.gov/research/recover/notable-thefts.htm...
a) everyone with a business purpose are the only ones going.
b) NO one on hacker news is ever going to go.
Depending on exactly how this is enforced it could be nothing or could be a big deal. It depends entirely on how much you trust the people who will be setting and enforcing the policies, and right now there have been a lot of withdrawals and very few deposits into the organizational trust of the US Government supply.
> ⓘ Restricted-Access Federal Facility, Effective July 7, 2025
>
> Effective July 7, 2025, the National Archives at College Park, MD, will become a restricted-access federal facility with access only for visitors with a legitimate business need. It will no longer be open to the general public. Security officers will enforce these restrictions, and your cooperation is appreciated.
bennettnate5•7h ago