Case 23-F-0946: What Was Cleared, and What Wasn’t
A government agency can confirm a document was cleared for public release without a reader ever seeing a single word of it. That is the position a recent FOIA release leaves David Grusch’s paperwork in, and the gap it leaves open is documented in its own right, tied to specific dates and specific names.
The Request
The record in question is FOIA Case 23-F-0946, filed by researcher John Greenewald of The Black Vault with the Department of Defense. Greenewald asked for the Defense Office of Prepublication and Security Review (DOPSR) files tied to David Grusch, the former intelligence official who has publicly described government knowledge of what he calls “non-human intelligence.” The release runs to fifteen responsive pages, with portions redacted. It covers two DOPSR submissions, one dated March 7, 2023, and one dated April 5, 2023, along with internal email traffic between two DOD reviewers, Michelle Whigham and Don Kluzik. What came back was limited to approval forms and internal correspondence, not the underlying material Grusch submitted for review.
Two Submissions, Two Clearances
The first submission, titled an “Interview Question Submission,” went in on March 7, 2023. DOPSR approved it on April 4, roughly four weeks later, in a letter signed by Donald E. Kluzik and addressed to “Dear David C. Grusch,” referencing a paper titled “Speaker/Author Summary” under reference number 23-S-1405. The letter states plainly: “The paper is APPROVED for public release.” The second submission, described in the file as a “future” interview question submission, was sent April 5. It was approved the following day, April 6. Both carry the same clearance language: open publication.
“Not Substantive Enough”
The internal emails show how that clearance was reached. Whigham wrote to Kluzik: “Although he does not divulge specific sensitive information, the author makes reference to sensitive areas. I just wanted you to review.” Kluzik’s reply treated the matter as closed, finding that vague references to sensitive areas, without more, were not a problem. Both submissions cleared shortly after. This is the reviewers’ own recorded reasoning, not an outside judgment about it. It is also a thin paper trail by design, a two-line exchange rather than a formal review board, deciding that nothing specific enough had been flagged to warrant one.
What (b)(6) Takes Off the Table
The actual text, Grusch’s interview questions and his answers, is withheld from the FOIA release under exemption (b)(6) of the Freedom of Information Act, codified at 5 U.S.C. ยง 552. That exemption covers material whose release “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” and it is routinely applied to things like biographical detail, home addresses, or personal information folded into an otherwise releasable document. It does not, on its own, tell a reader whether the redacted material here is a paragraph of biography or something closer to the substance of Grusch’s claims. The release confirms a document existed and was approved. It does not show what that document said.
The Shape of the Gap
Four things remain open, and they are separate gaps rather than one puzzle. First, the “sensitive areas” Whigham referenced in her email are never named anywhere in the released record. Second, nothing in the file explains why Grusch, who has referred to his DOPSR clearance in interviews and before Congress, has not released the cleared paperwork himself. Third, The Black Vault contacted Grusch’s attorney, Charles McCullough III, in June 2023 specifically to ask about the DOPSR material, and received no response. Fourth, The Black Vault said it intended to appeal the (b)(6) redactions; as of the September 18, 2023, publication of its findings, that appeal had not been shown to have been filed.
Greenewald’s Point
After the FOIA documents came back, Greenewald offered a view on what the silence suggested: that Grusch releasing his own cleared material would do more for his credibility than leaving it unreleased. He also raised the possibility that the redactions might reflect the manuscript being treated as Grusch’s personal product rather than as an official agency record, which is a reading of the exemption, not a documented fact about how it was applied. Both are commentary made after the case file was produced. Neither is evidence of anyone’s motive. They are one researcher’s interpretation of a gap he was the one who uncovered.
What the File Doesn’t Resolve
What is settled: two DOPSR submissions, filed a month apart, both approved for open publication within a day or two of filing, on a documented record signed by a named reviewer. What is also settled: the reviewers’ own stated reasoning for approving them, recorded in two sentences of internal email. What is not available is the content of what was actually cleared, withheld under a personal-privacy exemption that does not specify what it is protecting. And what has no documentary answer at all is the question of why a man who has repeatedly cited his own government clearance has not shown anyone the paper it was stamped on.
That last point is the one a careful reader should sit with longer than the redactions themselves. A classification mark explains itself; a silence does not. The file gives dates, names, and a clearance stamp, and then simply stops, without telling anyone why the cleared pages have stayed in a drawer.