COINTELPRO Full Disclosure Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Lee, Summer L. [D-PA-12]
- Committees
- Transportation and Infrastructure Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Jan 22, 2026
Bottom line
The COINTELPRO Full Disclosure Act aims to bring transparency to historical covert government operations by declassifying and publicly archiving related records, while establishing an oversight board and renaming a federal building.
What it actually does
This bill mandates the public disclosure of all COINTELPRO records held by any government office, establishing a COINTELPRO Records Collection at the National Archives. It creates an independent COINTELPRO Records Review Board to oversee the disclosure process, review exemption claims, and ensure maximum transparency, with limited exceptions for national security, law enforcement, and personal privacy. It also renames the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Building to the Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Building.
Proponents argue
Supporters argue that full disclosure of COINTELPRO records is essential for historical accountability, government transparency, and restoring public trust by revealing the extent of past government surveillance and disruption of domestic political organizations. They believe it will provide closure for affected individuals and groups and serve as a critical historical lesson.
Opponents contend
Critics might argue that full disclosure, even with the bill's specified exceptions, could still compromise sensitive national security information, reveal intelligence methods, or unfairly expose individuals who cooperated with the government under confidentiality agreements. They might also raise concerns about the administrative burden and cost of reviewing and redacting potentially millions of documents.
The bill is moderately complex but accessible to an informed reader, requiring a reasonable amount of time to understand its provisions.
Section 2
Mandatory Public Disclosure and Exceptions
This provision requires all government offices to fully disclose COINTELPRO records within six months of the Act's enactment. Disclosure is mandatory unless it would 'clearly and demonstrably be expected to cause harm,' which includes threats to national security, law enforcement, intelligence operations, foreign relations, or personal privacy. If an exception applies, partial disclosure (segregable information, a substitute record, or a summary) is required. Records not fully disclosed are transmitted to the Review Board. After 25 years, all records must be disclosed unless specific high-level exemptions are approved by the Archivist and potentially overridden by the President or congressional leadership. Victims or their next of kin must be notified seven days prior to public disclosure.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision ensures maximum transparency and accountability for past government abuses, providing a comprehensive historical record for future generations and potentially offering closure to those affected. They contend that the defined exceptions provide necessary safeguards while prioritizing public access.
Critics contend
Critics might argue that the exceptions, while present, may not be sufficient to protect genuinely sensitive national security information, intelligence methods, or individuals who provided confidential information under past agreements. They may also express concern about the administrative burden and potential for disputes over what constitutes 'harm'.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances the public's right to historical information and government transparency against legitimate concerns for national security, law enforcement integrity, and individual privacy. The tension lies in defining the precise boundaries of these competing interests.
Section 3
Establishment of a Centralized Records Collection
This provision mandates the establishment of the 'COINTELPRO Records Collection' at the National Archives within 60 days of the Act's enactment. The collection will house copies of all disclosed COINTELPRO records, including those made public before the Act, and all records generated by the Review Board. The Archivist is required to prepare and publish a subject guidebook and index for the Collection. All records in the Collection must be made publicly available for inspection and copying at the National Archives within 60 days of their transmission, with digitization prioritized.
Section 4
Establishment and Powers of the COINTELPRO Records Review Board
This provision establishes an independent, five-member COINTELPRO Records Review Board within the executive branch. Members are appointed by the President with Senate consent and must be distinguished professionals with no prior involvement in COINTELPRO investigations, including at least one professional historian and one attorney. The Board's primary duty is to review government offices' determinations to partially disclose records and recommend either full disclosure or continued partial disclosure to the President. The Board is granted significant powers, including the authority to direct government offices to provide additional information, subpoena private persons for documents, and require written accounts for destroyed records. The Board terminates after four years, with a possible one-year extension, and is required to submit regular reports to Congress and the President.
Sections 9 and 10
Renaming of FBI Headquarters
This provision redesignates the J. Edgar Hoover Federal Building, located at 935 Pennsylvania Avenue Northwest in Washington, DC, as the 'Federal Bureau of Investigation Federal Building.' Section 10 ensures that any reference in law, maps, regulations, documents, or other records of the United States to the former name will be deemed a reference to the new name.
Section 11
Interim Funding Mechanism
This provision stipulates that until specific funds are appropriated by Congress to carry out the Act, the President shall use sums that are available for discretionary use to implement the Act's requirements. This allows for immediate commencement of the Act's provisions without waiting for the potentially lengthy congressional appropriations process.
This provision allows the Review Board to request the Attorney General to petition any court to release COINTELPRO-relevant information held under grand jury secrecy. Crucially, it states that such a request 'shall be deemed to constitute a showing of particularized need pursuant to rule 6 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.'
Section 7(a)(2)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to address specific legal hurdles for accessing certain types of records. The 'particularized need' clause is a technical but critical legal mechanism to overcome the general secrecy of grand jury proceedings.
Case for: Supporters argue this is essential to overcome significant legal barriers to accessing grand jury records, which often contain crucial information, thereby ensuring a comprehensive review of COINTELPRO activities that might otherwise remain hidden.
Case against: Critics might argue that automatically deeming 'particularized need' for these records could undermine the long-standing principle of grand jury secrecy, potentially chilling future cooperation with grand juries or revealing sensitive information that should remain protected.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as grand jury records are a major source of information often inaccessible to the public, and this provision provides a direct legal pathway to their disclosure.
This provision states that when the Act requires transmission or public disclosure of a record, it takes precedence over 'any other law (except section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986), judicial decisions construing such law, or common law doctrine that would otherwise prohibit such transmission or disclosure.' It explicitly excludes personnel and medical files if disclosure would constitute a 'clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.'
Section 8(a)
Why it matters:It is standard legislative practice to include such clauses to clarify how a new law interacts with existing statutes and legal principles, ensuring the new law's intended effect without ambiguity.
Case for: Proponents argue this is vital to ensure the Act's effectiveness, preventing other laws or doctrines from being used to block disclosure of COINTELPRO records, thereby upholding the principle of transparency and preventing agencies from using existing legal loopholes to withhold information.
Case against: Critics might argue that overriding existing laws could create unforeseen legal conflicts or inadvertently expose information that was intended to remain protected under other statutes, even with the explicit privacy exception, potentially leading to unintended consequences.
Estimated impact: High, as it significantly broadens the scope of what can be disclosed by overriding other legal protections, making the Act's disclosure mandates more powerful.