Members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) at the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) utilized artificial intelligence to influence housing policy decisions. Recent documents obtained through a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by Democracy Forward indicate that HUD is denying requests for information regarding the use and development of AI tools.
Documents reveal that last year, WIRED reported on Christopher Sweet, a University of Chicago student, who joined the DOGE team alongside Scott Langmack, previously from the property tech startup Kukun. Sweet's primary role involved leveraging AI to identify HUD rules for potential rescission, while HUD staff reported mixed feelings about the initiative's effectiveness.
FOIA Requests and Withheld Documents
The FOIA request by Democracy Forward sought over 100 documents related to HUD's AI applications in policy-making. However, HUD withheld most documents, citing reasons including a nonexistent AI privilege and presidential communications privilege. Among the documents, a file titled “GPT defined Econ Analysis approach 11 10 25.docx” was deemed exempt due to its classification as “deliberative AI input.”
Other documents, like “RegulatoryAnalysisPrompt.pdf”, suggest that the DOGE team was exploring AI-generated prompts for regulatory analysis. However, the specifics of how AI influenced these documents remain unclear due to the lack of transparency.
Concerns Over AI's Role in Policy Making
Experts express concern regarding the opaque nature of AI's involvement in policy-making. Tori Noble, a staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, emphasizes the importance of transparency, stating, “It’s not necessarily the case that we’d always know how tools are being used.” The absence of laws mandating disclosure of AI's role in policymaking raises questions about accountability and bias.
Mark Fagan, a lecturer at the Harvard Kennedy School, noted that while AI could play a role in deliberative processes, transparency is essential for building public confidence in AI applications in government.
Deliberative Process Privilege and Its Implications
HUD's FOIA office cited “deliberative process privilege” as a reason for withholding many documents, which protects discussions among federal employees regarding new policies. John Davisson, deputy director at the Electronic Privacy Information Center, explained that this privilege encourages open dialogue among agency staff without fear of repercussions.
However, some documents were withheld specifically for being labeled as “draft of AI prompt” or “deliberative AI input.” Davisson clarified, “There is no AI exemption under FOIA,” indicating that interactions between personnel and AI should not be shielded from public scrutiny.
- Over 100 documents withheld by HUD
- Key contributors: Christopher Sweet, Scott Langmack
- Documents include AI-generated regulatory analysis prompts
- Concerns regarding transparency and accountability
🤖 This article was rewritten by Feed and Figures' editorial AI from a report originally published by Wired. Facts and quotes are preserved from the original; the rewrite focuses on clarity and structure. For the unedited original, see the source link below.
