In possibly one of the funniest moments yet in the very short—yet fruitful—history of DOGE, CNN got an epic response to its Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking information about Elon Musk's government security clearance: "Good luck with that."

CNN staffers submitted the request to the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) asking "for records related to the security clearances of Musk and anyone from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) who has been granted access to sensitive or classified government networks." In return, they got an email telling them: “Good luck with that, they just fired the whole privacy team."

It would seem that the aforementioned DOGE had just notified several OPM staffers, some of whom may deal with "privacy" issues such as security clearances, that their services would no longer be necessary going forward. Terrible timing for CNN, who did admit, however, that they were told not everyone on the privacy team had been terminated and some of the fired staff would not be leaving until after April 15.

CNN submitted a FOIA request for records related to the security clearances of Musk & DOGE personnel granted access to classified/secure networks.

“Good luck with that, they just fired the whole privacy team,” an OPM email address responded.https://t.co/8vCdQIPA0L

— Haley Britzky (@halbritz) February 18, 2025

It's clear that CNN is in desperate need of a "scoop," perhaps to help them stop bleeding viewers or the fact that one of their star reporters is a Luigi Mangione fan, but Elon Musk's security clearance was never going to be it. In fact, Musk himself addressed this issue just last week, but maybe the eagle eyes at CNN somehow missed it.

I’ve had a top secret clearance for many years and have clearances that themselves are classified.

That said, FAR too much information is made “classified”. If something is easily found online or patently obvious, it should NOT be classified. This impedes effective… https://t.co/5DmRhDCkRo

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 14, 2025

I’ve had a top secret clearance for many years and have clearances that themselves are classified. 

That said, FAR too much information is made “classified”. If something is easily found online or patently obvious, it should NOT be classified. This impedes effective communication within the government.

Unsurprisingly, the man that builds rocket ships for NASA and has worked closely with the U.S. military and intelligence communities holds a top secret clearance designation, and has held it since well before forming an alliance with Donald Trump. 

And, as it turns out, CNN has no right at all to snoop into Musk's clearance status via FOIA request because releasing such information is against the country's national security interests. 

The Department of Justice has made its position on this very clear:

1. FOIA Exemption 1 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(1)) – This exemption protects information that is classified under Executive Order 13526 (or its successors) for national security reasons. Security clearance information often falls under this exemption because it involves classified material.

2. FOIA Exemption 3 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(3)) – This exemption protects information that is specifically restricted from disclosure by other statutes. Security clearance details may be shielded under laws such as:

   • 50 U.S.C. § 3024(i)(1) – Prohibits disclosure of intelligence sources and methods, which often relate to security clearances.
   • Privacy Act of 1974 (5 U.S.C. § 552a) – Protects personal records, including an individual's security clearance status.

3. FOIA Exemption 6 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6)) – Protects personal privacy by preventing the disclosure of information that would constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Security clearance status is considered personal information.

4. FOIA Exemption 7 (5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7)) – Protects records compiled for law enforcement purposes, including background investigations related to security clearances.

It's interesting to see CNN put in this position after years of conservative media outlets having their FOIA requests ignored, denied, or approved but with the caveat that hefty surcharges would be applied by the government for extracting the FOIA information.