The Central Intelligence Agency requires current and former officers to submit manuscripts, speeches and other writings to its Publication Review Board before public release. The requirement flows from secrecy agreements signed at the start of employment. According to the agency’s own public descriptions, the board is charged with preventing disclosure of classified information.

Former officers have alleged in federal court that the board’s reviews routinely exceed any informal timetable the agency has described. Docket entries in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and the Eastern District of Virginia show complaints that manuscripts sat for six months, a year or longer with little or no status update. Plaintiffs have described the delays as effectively a prior restraint.

The Freedom of Information Act has become the parallel track. Officers whose manuscripts remain in review have filed FOIA requests for their own submitted drafts, for the board’s correspondence, and for any classification determinations already made. When the agency fails to meet FOIA’s 20-working-day statutory deadline, or issues Glomar or exemption claims, the same officers have sued. The record shows these FOIA actions often run concurrently with the prepublication process rather than after it concludes.

Public inspector-general reports from the CIA Office of Inspector General have noted backlogs in the review function. Those reports, released in redacted form, cite staffing levels and the volume of submissions from a large alumni population. They do not, according to the released text, quantify average wait times in a way that would resolve the litigation. Congressional budget justifications for the National Intelligence Program list personnel and information-technology lines that support classification review, but they do not isolate the Publication Review Board as a separate appropriation.

In several FOIA cases the agency has invoked Exemption 1 (classified national-security information) and Exemption 3 (statutes protecting intelligence sources and methods) to withhold portions of the very manuscripts the officers already submitted. Plaintiffs have argued in briefs that the agency cannot simultaneously claim the material is classified and refuse to complete the classification review that would allow publication of an unclassified version. Judges have, in published opinions, ordered Vaughn indexes and in-camera review rather than immediate release.

The Department of Justice has represented the CIA in these suits. Public filings show the government has sought stays while the board completes its work, arguing that FOIA is not a substitute for the prepublication process. Former officers’ counsel have countered that the two regimes serve different purposes: one is a contractual clearance obligation, the other a statutory right to agency records. The dockets do not show a single controlling appellate ruling that merges the two.

Secrecy agreements remain in force after employment ends. The CIA has publicly stated that unauthorized disclosure can lead to civil or criminal referral. That position, according to the agency’s website and prior congressional testimony, applies whether or not a manuscript is still in review. FOIA plaintiffs have therefore proceeded under protective orders and have not, in the public record, published the disputed texts while litigation is pending.

Budget documents submitted to the House and Senate intelligence committees show modest year-to-year increases in “information management” accounts. Those accounts, according to the justifications, cover declassification, FOIA processing and related functions. They do not break out prepublication review as a distinct line. Inspector-general work plans have listed the review process among topics for possible future inspection, but completed reports publicly available do not contain a comprehensive audit of wait times.

Several former officers have also sought their own personnel files and cable traffic under FOIA, arguing that the material would demonstrate what the agency already treated as unclassified during their service. The agency has released some records with heavy redactions. Court orders have required the CIA to justify each withholding rather than rely on categorical claims. The resulting productions, according to docket notices, have been incremental.

The tension is institutional rather than personal. The CIA maintains that prepublication review protects sources, methods and liaison relationships. Former officers maintain that prolonged delay, followed by FOIA stonewalling, leaves them unable to describe their own careers even in unclassified terms. Neither side has, in the public filings, produced a classified document; both sides cite the same statutes and the same secrecy agreements.

Litigation continues. New complaints appear on PACER with similar allegations of delay and similar FOIA counts. The Publication Review Board continues to operate under the same charter. Budget justifications continue to list the supporting functions without isolating the backlog. The public record therefore shows two processes running in parallel, each generating its own paper trail, neither yet resolving the other.