NIH Says “We Have Provided Everything We Are Required to at This Time” — But Still Has Not Said Whether It Located Responsive Records: New FOIA Seeks Determination Letter, Senator Van Hollen Asked to Assist
NIH received FOIA Request No. 66155 on June 17, 2026. More than three months later, NIH has not said whether it located responsive records, what it intends to produce, or what, if anything, it intends to withhold. After NIH stated that it had “provided everything we are required to at this time,” Dr. Bradley Foerster asked Senator Chris Van Hollen’s office for assistance obtaining NIH’s written determination.
Why This FOIA Was Filed
FOIA Request No. 66155 grew out of an unresolved records question involving the HHS-OIG/FBI investigation of ALS NIH Grant R01NS082304.
FBI records released in Foerster v. U.S. Department of Justice documented a 2019 debarment process involving Dr. Bradley Foerster and, as a later FBI release revealed, Dr. Myria Petrou. The records show that the FBI continued to follow the debarment process after the U.S. Attorney’s Office declined criminal prosecution and the criminal investigation closed.
The documentary history is detailed in three earlier posts: the June 2026 FBI production documenting the debarment process ; the later FBI release identifying Dr. Myria Petrou in the debarment record ; and the subsequent comparison between the FBI debarment records and HHS-OIG’s no-responsive-records determinations .
HHS-OIG ultimately reported that it located no responsive records concerning a debarment process involving either Dr. Foerster or Dr. Petrou.
Dr. Foerster therefore turned to NIH to determine what records NIH maintains concerning the documented debarment process and its ultimate disposition.
Request No. 66155 seeks records concerning any notice, proposed notice, determination, decision, or other communication involving suspension, debarment, exclusion, disqualification, grant restriction, grant reduction, ineligibility for federal funding, or other administrative action arising from R01NS082304 or other federal funding.
August 3 — “If” Documents Are Located
NIH received the request on June 17. On August 3, NIH sent an acknowledgment.
But NIH left open whether responsive documents had been located:
“If any documents responsive to your request are located, they will be reviewed for releasability…”
August 20 — NIH Is “Reviewing the Documents”
On August 20, NIH said it was actively processing the request and needed approximately four more weeks to:
“properly review the documents and make any necessary consultations.”
The four-week estimate passed without a determination. On September 21, Dr. Foerster again requested NIH’s written determination under FOIA, separately from the eventual production of records.
September 22 — Back to “If”
The next morning, NIH provided another estimate: four to six additional weeks. NIH also resent its August 3 acknowledgment—the same letter stating that “if” responsive documents were located, the documents would be reviewed.
August 3: “if” documents are located → August 20: NIH is “reviewing the documents” and needs four more weeks → September 22: NIH resends the original “if” acknowledgment and adds another four to six weeks.
After more than three months, NIH still had not said whether it had located responsive records, what it intended to produce, or what, if anything, it intended to withhold.
Dr. Foerster again requested the determination and asked whether NIH considered the August 3 acknowledgment to be its statutory determination. NIH responded:
“We have provided everything we are required to at this time.”
NIH said the request remained under processing and directed Dr. Foerster to the Office of Government Information Services for questions about FOIA and possible next steps.
Dr. Foerster then asked NIH one final, direct question: had NIH not yet issued its statutory determination, or did NIH consider the August 3 acknowledgment to be that determination?
Dr. Foerster made clear that he was not requesting another processing estimate or asking NIH to accelerate production. Dr. Foerster was asking NIH to identify whether the statutory determination had been issued.
NIH did not answer.
Senator Van Hollen Asked to Assist
September 23 — A FOIA Request for the Determination Letter Itself
After receiving no response to the final question, Dr. Foerster filed a separate FOIA request seeking the determination letter itself.
The new request asks for any record constituting or communicating NIH/NINDS’s written determination for FOIA Request No. 66155. It defines “determination” using the D.C. Circuit’s decision in Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. FEC, 711 F.3d 180, 188 (D.C. Cir. 2013) . A copy of the CREW decision was also attached to the new FOIA request.
The request also draws a clear distinction between a determination and the documents NIH has provided to date:
“This request does not seek an acknowledgment of receipt, a processing-status update, an estimated completion date, or the subsequent production of records responsive to FOIA Request No. 66155.”
If NIH/NINDS has not issued a qualifying determination and no such record exists, the new request asks NIH to reflect that no-responsive-records result in its written determination on the new FOIA request.
In other words, the new FOIA presents a narrow records question: does NIH have the determination letter for FOIA Request No. 66155?
Senator Chris Van Hollen Asked to Assist
Dr. Foerster also asked Senator Chris Van Hollen’s office for assistance obtaining NIH’s determination for FOIA Request No. 66155.
The request stated:
“NIH responded that it has ‘provided everything we are required to at this time’ but still did not provide the determination. I ask the Senator’s office to contact NIH and assist me in obtaining it.”
Dr. Foerster authorized Senator Chris Van Hollen’s office to contact NIH regarding FOIA Request No. 66155.
Dr. Foerster’s request for assistance concerning NIH FOIA Request No. 66155 is now before Senator Chris Van Hollen’s office.
This is the second outstanding federal FOIA determination for which Dr. Foerster has sought assistance from Senator Chris Van Hollen’s office. The other concerns HHS-OIG records identifying the role of “Tyson Howard” in HHS-OIG Case No. 5-17-0-0192-4.
Selected Reporting
- Bradley Foerster Submits 140-Exhibit, 1,121-Page Documentary Chronology to FBI for Supervisory Review of the Investigation Involving Dr. Bradley Foerster, Dr. Myria Petrou, and Duaa Altaee
- From One FBI File to a Legislative Proposal: Peter and Maria Foerster Ask Senator Van Hollen's Office and Congressman Jamie Raskin to Consider a Uniform Administrative Framework for Federal Investigations
- Eva Feldman Documentary Chronology: 139 Exhibits on NIH R01NS082304, University Proceedings, and Federal Investigation — No Response Received
- Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Send Ann Arbor Officials Documentary Chronology on AAPD and Related Federal Investigations — No Response Received
- Timothy Lynch Documentary Chronology: 63 Exhibits on University of Michigan Office of General Counsel, University Investigations, and Law Enforcement — No Response Received
- Bradley Foerster and Myria Petrou Documentary Chronology: 8 Exhibits Document More Than Two Years of Efforts to Trace Bank of Ann Arbor's $1.4 Million Sheriff's Sale Credit Bid — No Response Received
Brad Foerster, MD PhD
Brad Foerster is a FOIA advocate documenting requests, transparency disputes, and accountability investigations involving public agencies, universities, police oversight, and Russia-Gate related inquiries. His work compiles original documents, timelines, and analysis of public records and institutional responses. Brad is also a board-certified radiologist, author of Town & Gown, and has published over 40 peer-reviewed articles. Brad lives in Potomac, Maryland with his family and is a member of the Montgomery County Medical Society and the Takoma Park U.S. & World History Book Club.