Office of the Historian

March 2025

Advisory Committee on Historical Diplomatic Documentation March 10–11, 2025

Minutes

[Note: These meeting minutes were approved for online publication by the Committee’s Designated Federal Official.]

Committee Members

  • James Goldgeier, Chair
  • Kristin Hoganson
  • Sharon Leon
  • Timothy Naftali
  • Deborah Pearlstein
  • Elizabeth Saunders
  • Sarah Snyder

Office of the Historian

  • Carl Ashley
  • Margaret Ball
  • Forrest Barnum
  • Sara Berndt
  • Josh Botts
  • Tiffany Cabrera
  • Mandy Chalou
  • Elizabeth Charles
  • Kathryn David
  • Cynthia Doell
  • Lynette Evans-Tiernan
  • Thomas Faith
  • Julie Fort
  • Stephanie Freeman
  • Amy Garrett
  • David Geyer
  • John Gleb
  • Renée Goings
  • Ben Greene
  • Michelle Guzman
  • Charles Hawley
  • Kerry Hite
  • Susan Holly
  • Adam Howard
  • Richard Hulver
  • Alina Khachtourian
  • Virginia Kinniburgh
  • Keri Lewis
  • Aaron Marrs
  • Michael McCoyer
  • Brad Morith
  • Christopher Morrison
  • David Nickles
  • Nicole Orphanides
  • Paul Pitman
  • Alexander Poster
  • John Powers
  • Julie Prieto
  • Kathleen Rasmussen
  • Matthew Regan
  • Amanda Ross
  • Seth Rotramel
  • Daniel Rubin
  • Ashley Schofield
  • Nathaniel Smith
  • Douglas Sun
  • Claudia Swain
  • Brooks Swett
  • Melissa Jane Taylor
  • Chris Tudda
  • Dean Weatherhead
  • Grace Wermenbol
  • Joseph Wicentowski
  • Alex Wieland
  • Tristan Williams
  • James Wilson
  • Louise Woodroofe

Bureau of Administration

  • Marci Bayer
  • Jeff Charlston
  • Timothy Kootz

National Archives and Records Administration

  • William Fischer
  • David Langbart
  • Don McIlwain
  • Chris Naylor

Public

  • Over 50 members of the public

James Goldgeier opened the session at 10 a.m.

Presentation on Past U.S. Centennial Planning Documented in the Foreign Relations of the United States series by Dr. Adam Howard

James Goldgeier opened the session by introducing himself and by welcoming all attendees, in person and online. He then turned it over to Adam Howard. Howard introduced the history, as documented in the Foreign Relations of the United States (FRUS) series, of the planning of the prior celebrations of the United States’ founding. These celebrations were the Centennial (1876), the Sesquicentennial (1926), and the Bicentennial (1976).

Howard focused on two areas: 1) the similarity between the celebrations on national unity; and 2) the differences between the celebrations. The Centennial, Sesquicentennial, and Bicentennial all shared a similar emphasis on national unity. In the case of the Centennial, the emphasis was placed on unifying the nation in the aftermath of the Civil War, and in the case of the Bicentennial, mending national schisms created by the Vietnam War and the Watergate scandal.

Howard noted that the celebrations differed in their approaches to planning and theming. The Centennial’s and Sesquicentennial’s emphasis was on centralization. The planning for the celebrations was highly centralized and both were staged solely in Philadelphia. In contrast, the Bicentennial’s emphasis was on decentralization with events held in numerous locations throughout the country at the national, state, and local levels, and the planning was shared between central national bodies and state and local entities.

Howard went on to share the themes emphasized by each celebration. The Centennial and Sesquicentennial focused on the growth of U.S. industry, technology, commerce, and trade while the Bicentennial had a much broader array of themes emphasized, including arts and culture, the media, civil rights, immigration, and scientific achievement.

Howard used documents from the FRUS series that specifically addressed the similarities and differences between the Centennial and Bicentennial, as well as the Sesquicentennial. He concluded the FRUS documents highlight the importance of U.S. foreign relations to all the celebrations, which took various forms from the presence of foreign dignitaries and officials at the celebrations to the inclusion of exhibits from various countries and the recognition of the U.S. celebrations in foreign capitals.

Howard then opened the floor for questions.

Goldgeier commented that for each of the previous celebrations planning began well ahead of the events. He asked, what is current level of planning for the 250th celebration?

Howard responded that the January 29 Executive Order requires all agencies in the government to play a role in planning. Each agency head provides materials to be sent to the President and Vice President, who are the Chair and Vice Chair of the committee. At the Department of State, the Office of the Historian (OH), in coordination with other offices in the Department, will provide relevant documents and support for programs and events for the leadership to send forward.

Kristin Hoganson asked if planners for previous celebrations considered how soft power would work at the time and might help to advance U.S. interests globally?

Howard responded, yes, there was a lot more awareness of the uses of soft power, especially because of the events of the late 1960s and early 1970s. The planners thought the celebration was a great tool to rebuild the U.S. reputation and image abroad. The big themes were liberty, freedom, and civil rights but grassroots planners had their own interpretations for local events and exhibits. At the federal level, they used the Franklin and Jefferson traveling exhibition to showcase founding fathers.

Hoganson also asked if there have been celebrations for the Constitution? Howard responded that, yes, there were some commemorations for those dates but this wasn’t a focus of research for this presentation. Kathleen Rasmussen added that the Reagan administration was heavily focused on commemorations and public diplomacy for these types of events and anniversaries. Sharon Leon commented that in 1976 the Smithsonian Museum of American History had a traveling exhibit titled “Nation of Nations” which celebrated immigrant communities.

Timothy Naftali asked if any heads of state visited for the Centennial. Howard responded, yes, there was a big push for dignitaries. Cables celebrated the visits and provided information. As an aside, John Powers said the Emperor of Brazil attended and had such a good time he stayed for four months.

David Langbart noted that beyond the FRUS documents, the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) holds a treasure trove of documents on these celebrations which can be found in the Central Files, as well as the ARBC Files. He noted that many records are available digitally.

Deborah Pearlstein asked about the “war of rebellion” language and if Howard knew when the language changed. Howard responded that for 1876 the idea was to shift focus off the war and not to talk about it. By the 1880s and 1890s, at least in Northern states, the term Civil War was used.

Goldgeier expressed that he is looking forward to the 250th celebration and is appreciative of the role of OH in helping celebrate the history.

Approval of the Record

Goldgeier then suggested they approve the minutes before the break with one change. The minutes need to reflect which HAC members attended and who was absent. The minutes were then approved.

Remarks by the Acting Director of the Foreign Service Institute (FSI)

Following a break, Goldgeier introduced Ambassador Maria Brewer. Howard said that prior to FSI, Ambassador Brewer served as U.S. Ambassador to the Kingdom of Lesotho, and as U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Sierra Leone.

Ambassador Brewer greeted members of the Committee, the Office, the Department, the interagency, and the public. She conveyed thanks and well-wishes from the retiring Director, Ambassador Joan Polaschik, expressed in a letter to the Committee, which members had in their briefing packets. She affirmed that the Office continued to report to the Director of FSI, and that Secretary of State Marco Rubio would appoint a new permanent Director upon reviewing the current candidates.

In the meantime, Ambassador Brewer noted the Department plans to submit the FRUS report to Congress in accordance with the October 1991 Foreign Relations statute. She expressed FSI’s commitment to the Office, the Foreign Relations series, and the excellent work performed by OH staff, but urged caution regarding fiscal concerns in the current “difficult budget time.”

The Ambassador then described FSI’s completed comprehensive review of all courses to ensure they align with all current Executive Orders and the administration’s policies. She noted that administrators reviewed and removed any courses or sections not in compliance and revised most FSI courses. She also noted FSI’s compliance with the return to the workplace.

In response to a question regarding document retention under acting officials, Ambassador Brewer noted that the list of acting directors appeared in Department bulletins, and that good records practices at FSI remained in place.

Goings added that the issue had received attention because the Department doesn’t have a single source to identify Capstone officials, that it differed from Bureau to Bureau, and that the Office had been working with other offices to ensure the accurate capture of documentation.

Regarding a question on possible revisions to the Foreign Service Manual, Ambassador Brewer indicated that FSI had not received a request to participate in any revisions.

Goldgeier thanked Ambassador Brewer for her remarks and turned to Howard for the Office Director’s report. Howard thanked Brewer and Polaschik, and heralded praise on Goings, Rasmussen, and Powers for their work to create new efficiencies and build relationships across agencies to improve the FRUS production timeline. Citing his earlier presentation on the U.S. birthday celebration, he noted that the office would be working with other directors across the Department to provide material support for the Department’s task force.

Remarks from the General Editor

In her report, Rasmussen highlighted the focus of the year ahead as moving FRUS volumes in the George H.W. Bush series from compilation and annotation into declassification. Well underway, this process was aided by the National Declassification Center in College Park, MD, where the Bush archives now live. Rasmussen announced that two volumes on the 1990 Iraqi invasion of Kuwait and subsequent Desert Shield and Desert Storm operations had moved into declassification. These volumes, compiled by Alex Wieland, would be followed by a third, probably before the June Committee meeting.

Remarks from the Director of Declassification, Publishing, and Digital Initiatives

Goldgeier then turned to Powers, the Declassification Coordination, Publishing, and Digital Initiatives Director, who noted that in the eighteen months since his division’s creation they had made enormous strides to reform and revise the process of declassification and publishing for FRUS. Through training, interagency partnership, and with the work of his strong, dedicated staff, Powers reported that last year the Office published three volumes—the most in a year since 2017. He highlighted the publication of the first born-digital indexes for six volumes across the series, a process that makes the texts more accessible to users.

This year, Powers expected the Office would publish more volumes than last year and projected that the number for 2026 would be greater still. Asked if more indexes were planned, Powers responded that, yes, this initial test case had gone so well that more were planned. A member of the Office posted a link to the six new indexes in the chat for the meeting.

Goldgeier said Powers’ update was “music to our ears” and offered congratulations about the ramped-up production. Pearlstein said that the update about indexing was equally exciting, making volumes even more accessible. She asked if there are plans to do this for all previously published volumes. Rasmussen responded that, so far, the Office is only undertaking this for volumes that currently have no index at all and that is the planned focus for now. She also commended the work on this initiative by OH staff members Virginia Kinniburgh, Joseph Wicentowski, Mandy Chalou, and Amanda Ross. Powers added that this had started as a pilot and worked so well that the office decided to keep it going. Goings noted the office is using modern tools to make the volume text more “knowable” in ways that go beyond a traditional index. Hoganson observed that the Committee had been hearing for years about modernization investments, and it is exciting to see that paying off.

Report from Shared Knowledge Services (SKS)

Goldgeier then welcomed Marci Bayer from the Department’s Enterprise Records Management Office, who spoke in the place of Agency Records Officer Mallory Rogoff. Bayer first responded to a question from audience member William Burr, to affirm that the 1980 and 1981 P and N reels have been digitized. She added that the 1980 set has finished declassification review, and the 1981 set is very close to finishing declassification review. Bayer noted that the eRecords archive system was built with the capability to transfer in the 1980 cables, and that a test had worked well. The National Archives is currently providing feedback on another test transfer. Bayer concluded her prepared remarks by stating that Department declassification reviewers were closing out the declassification work on the 1980 P reel index, which is the last declassification action for 1980 records.

Goldgeier asked Langbart if he had anything to add on these points, and Langbart replied that he did not. Howard asked Langbart to speak about NARA holdings and information that might be of interest regarding the upcoming 250th anniversary of U.S. independence. Langbart responded that for the bicentennial commemoration, the Central Foreign Policy files for 1973–1976 are great. He urged researchers to read NARA’s “frequently asked questions” guide when using these materials. Langbart added that there are a lot of reports in the P reels, the decentralized files, and in USIA records. He noted that NARA offers online listings about what is in RG 43 records regarding exhibitions and expositions and drew attention to the 1876 centennial reports that included fully digitized despatches.

Goldgeier concluded by thanking all committee members and attendees for their participation in the session.

Closed Session

Report from Shared Knowledge Services (SKS)

Goldgeier opened the session at 1 p.m. by welcoming Tim Kootz to the meeting.

Kootz opened his presentation by noting he had no formal agenda for his remarks but instead wished to report to the HAC two “good news” items. The first related to FOIA. Kootz highlighted the changes made to the foia.state.gov website to make it more user- and mobile-friendly. Before these recent enhancements, the last update to the website took place in 2018. With the addition of new personnel in recent years, he noted that SKS was now processing approximately the same number of FOIA cases as the number of new cases received. Within the last year, Kootz reported, SKS had processed 20,775 FOIA cases, a marked increase from the 12,000 cases and the 8,000 cases processed respectively in the two years prior. During 2024, SKS had received 22,000 new cases, an increase from 15,000 in FY2023. In FY2025, he estimated an expected caseload of 22–25,000 new cases. Elaborating, Kootz reported that approximately 50 percent of new cases pertained to visa cases which, he noted, were received by SKS but passed to partners in Consular Affairs or Passport Services for processing. Nevertheless, SKS was looking at ways to speed up this process and leverage new methods and technologies to keep up with the caseload.

Pivoting to the case backlog, Kootz reported that SKS had reduced the overall backlog—by a total of 4 cases—and observed the continuing need to “stop the bleeding” and to prevent the overall case backlog from slowly getting bigger. To this end, he pointed out that his team did not necessarily need more “bodies” but rather “trained professionals” to ensure that all staff had requisite skills to process the caseload. Characterizing the nature of the backlog, Kootz noted that the oldest cases were approximately 18 years old. Reduction of the backlog required the establishment of good benchmark objectives, and Kootz hoped that a new “work plan” to complete the backlog could be rolled out in the next few months. Elements of this plan this goal could be posted publicly on foia.state.gov in a departure from past practice.

Kootz also noted the website’s introduction of an updated search engine (Elasticsearch), also used in the DoS eRecords system. This, he stated, would give public users more features to aid their searches on the site. Moreover, he highlighted the posting of approximately 500,000 pages of documentation, previously located in its physical reading room, to the website’s FOIA Library page. Kootz reported that no new progress has been made in posting declassified cables to the website as this effort has been slowed by the recent push to process document requests in support of the Afghanistan War Commission.

Though cautioning that there was still more to do, Kootz nevertheless expressed confidence that SKS was “rounding the bend” in creating a more positive experience with FOIA for the public.

Referencing the age of the oldest outstanding unprocessed FOIA cases, Naftali asked whether this meant that no FOIA cases after 2007 had been processed. Kootz responded that this was not the case and that cases filed after 2007 had indeed been processed. He noted that the oldest remaining cases were still open because of their complexity, the need for input from other equity-holding agencies, or their voluminous nature. He observed that one criterion in the Department of Justice’s evaluation of FOIA programs is whether they have closed their oldest cases. Responding to Naftali’s request for further clarification, Kootz reported that the bulk of outstanding cases were post-2012; only a handful are older. To this point, he offered to provide a summary of cases by year. Moreover, he noted that a lot has been done internally to improve management control with the aim of reducing this backlog. He reported that his team uses “Power BI” so that anyone within the Department can look at FOIA data and examine trends.

Naftali asked whether SKS was able to track agency equities in outstanding cases and identify those agencies which have been slower to respond with reviews. Kootz responded by observing that DoS itself was also late responding to other agencies’ requests. At the same time, he acknowledged the need for more robust tracking and follow-up for active cases.

Citing SKS success in creating a collaborative relationship with its DoD counterparts, Naftali and Goldgeier asked whether this collaboration has continued and could be leveraged further to improve FOIA case responses. Snyder suggested that a public interface could be created to allow FOIA requesters to track the progress of their cases in real time. Hoganson, Leon, and Saunders expressed similar views and cited various private sector examples. Kootz responded that the current public interface provided bare-bones information to requesters about the status of their cases, but agreed that more transparency was needed and expressed openness to the HAC members’ suggestions. Continuing, Naftali cited his own recent experience with a longstanding open FOIA request he placed as a possible model for SKS. Naftali stated that he was given the option of accepting a partially-completed case with the option of filing a new case to a second agency with an equity in the remaining material. Suggesting a possible threshold of 15 years, Naftali wondered if SKS could consider a similar policy of partial completion of cases as a means of closing old cases. Kootz expressed openness to the suggestion, noting that this would build on current practices of “rolling releases” designed to improve customer service for FOIA requesters. Kootz also noted that using a “rolling release” to fulfill a FOIA request partially does not close that case. Kootz added that SKS has made strides in customer service by consolidating functions at the Charleston processing center that enabled the establishment of better connections between FOIA reviewers/analysts and requestors.

Goldgeier asked Kootz whether staffing at the Charleston center has been affected by recent government cuts. Kootz confirmed that cuts have not impacted the center’s staffing at this point. The staffing has remained below full capacity since a previous hiring freeze.

Hoganson asked Kootz about processing of FOIA visa cases and wondered whether this could serve as a broader processing model. Could the processing of cases be expedited by referring cases to other DoS entities? Kootz responded by noting that the handling of visa cases differed significantly from other agency consultations SKS engaged in. Visa cases were referred to the Bureau of Consular Affairs as they possessed access to systems unavailable to SKS reviewers. Nevertheless, SKS was looking at ways of expediting the processing of FOIA visa, including the use of automation.

Kootz then turned to the second good news item: the imminent completion of the DoS/DoD Memorandum of Understanding allowing the integration of DoD and DoS systems on DoS networks to facilitate interagency collaboration on document review cases. (Goings interjected to highlight for the HAC how momentous this development will be once completed.) Kootz noted that the agreement will enable DoS to see how interagency systems could be further merged. Assuming current funding remained steady, he added, he envisioned that the DoS/DoD collaboration will continue. He also noted that SKS is continuing and even ramping up initiatives to use artificial intelligence for responding to FOIA requests. He observed that OH has been “chipping in” to keep these efforts with Artificial Intelligence up and running.

Kootz also reported on SKS-OH collaboration to appropriately identify and archive the records of acting Capstone-level officials. Kootz praised Joshua Botts for coming up with a solution for this task. Kootz invited Botts to briefly describe a proposal approved by Kootz to use the eRecords system, in conjunction with David Kirby, to identify acting Capstone officials and capture the records generated during their terms of service. Kootz added that this program’s progress will be evaluated over the coming year.

Pearlstein stated that she was happy to hear this initiative was taking shape as she has been alarmed by public reporting suggesting that official communications within the federal government were not being appropriately saved and archived. Kootz agreed that the need to ensure that Capstone-level officials’ official communications was an ongoing concern, citing DoS efforts to ensure proper training for officials in their legal obligations to preserve federal records during both onboarding and separation processes. He added that he was not aware of any cases at DoS of deliberate non-compliance, stating he would obviously follow-up on any such instances. He also acknowledged the gaps in compliance across the federal government.

Kootz continued by reporting on DoS efforts to capture and archive officials’ communications in eRecords using third-party applications on DoS-issued equipment. In response to Pearlstein’s reference to sample documentation used in onboarding officials, Kootz further described the onboarding process.

Regarding DoS efforts to capture and archive third-party application communication by Capstone officials, Leon asked whether this was done in real time. Kootz confirmed that current DoS practice requires the manual export of third-party messages and that DoS piloted real-time capture software that enables the creation of official sub-collections for these officials in eRecords. Kootz added that these efforts are ongoing without new funding and confirmed funding was set aside for such a solution. He also described a few of the challenges that have prolonged the process of acquiring and implementing the necessary technology to capture messages from third-party applications. Nonetheless, Kootz’s team has been able to test the technology, and Kootz expects progress on this front in the next six months.

Goldgeier thanked Kootz for his presentation. Kootz the thanked HAC and OH for its cooperation. The session adjourned at 1:49 p.m.

Report on the Office’s Strategic Plan

Senior management spoke to the Committee and members of the Office regarding the strategic plan for the upcoming year.

Discussion of FRUS Plans for High Level Panel (HLP) Actions

Keri Lewis and John Powers delivered a presentation on moving forward with plans for revising the Office’s plans for HLP actions.

Closed Session, March 11

HAC Records Subcommittee

The members of the Records Subcommittee met to discuss issues related to records retirement and retention.

Discussion on the 2025 HAC Report

The Office and the Committee met to discuss the HAC’s Annual Report to Congress.