Government secrecy has undermined the public’s ability to hold our leaders accountable for keeping our country secure and community safe. Yet the government’s claims that providing citizens with information harms national security may be overblown. Case One: The Project On Government Oversight (POGO), a critic of government and corporate misconduct in defense and military matters, recently was threatened with criminal prosecution for releasing sensitive information in a letter to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NCR) outlining shortcomings in tests of nuclear plant security. Government officials wanted POGO to rewrite the letter, but refused to explain their specific concerns. POGO agreed to pull the letter off its web site until it could resolve the government’s concerns. According to POGO, after much back and forth between their lawyers and NRC lawyers, the NRC finally explained their concerns. The commission officials claimed they did not want to give terrorists any hints on how to research weaknesses at nuclear facilities and POGO’s letter had clearly done so. POGO’s letter documented interviews with security guards to identify the shortcomings in security testing. Thus, the letter disclosing POGOs research methods would help terrorists and should be amended. So what did POGO write? After interviewing scores of nuclear plant guards, POGO worried that government officials were gaming tests of nuclear plant security. In these tests, teams stage a mock attack on a plant. The plant’s security equipment and guards are tested on their ability to defend the plant and prevent a catastrophe. According to POGO, mock attacks were staged during daylight hours, plant officials knew in advance when the tests were going to occur, and other limits all but assured the nuclear facility would pass the test, without regard for the plant’s actual ability to foil trained terrorists’ plans. Case Two: In a separate incident, a group of concerned neighbors had been working for years in what the group’s lawyers said was a constructive relationship to track drinking water supplies contaminated with perchlorate, a rocket fuel that causes developmental problems in children. After 9/11, the Army refused to share critical information with the community groups, including maps of drinking water test wells. What confused community groups the most was the fact that these maps were already shared publicly -- but the Army refused to acknowledge them and claimed they were “sensitive” information not for public release. The community group refused to back down and is now suing the Army for information under an environmental law that gives community groups the right to be informed about toxic chemical threats. These examples follow a growing trend in government to disclose information on a need-to-know basis, making it harder for the public to ensure safe drinking water and secured nuclear facilities. In denying the public information about such threats and keeping unnecessary secrets, government officials are cutting the public out of efforts to make our communities safer.