It started as a bit of a FOIA troll: Requesting CIA’s documentation on how it uses poisons for covert assassinations was always a long shot. Now the court case could help improve FOIA responses for requesters everywhere. Read how to tune in live.

Presidential visits, whether to rustic diners or clandestine headquarters, are always both meticulously planned and opportunities for unexpected chaos. When it’s President Trump visiting the CIA, the notoriously tight-lipped staff find themselves wrangling for seats and dealing with logistics that, unsurprisingly, were remarkably fluid for a trip just across the Potomac.

There’s a running joke on both sides of the transparency community that the standards for secrecy are so absurd that “you could easily classify a ham sandwich.” And nowhere does that dictum ring more true than in regards to the Central Intelligence Agency, which has, on multiple occasions, classified ham sandwiches.

During my time at MuckRock, I’ve written extensively about the triumphs and tragedies of the Central Intelligence Archive cafeteria(s), including such FOIA favorites as “The Jazz Salad Incident,” “Bacon Accounting,” and “That Scene From Animal House But It’s All The Guys Who Couldn’t Kill Castro.” Before I go, I wanted to share one of my favorite finds from the CIA archives: The description of an employee’s aborted attempt to smuggle chicken out of the cafeteria in her purse.

An undated regulation uncovered in the Central Intelligence Agency archives, formerly classified SECRET, appears to outline the “Dos and Don’ts” for Agency historians. While most of the consideration goes into avoiding exposing the identities of undercover agents (and acknowledging the inherent difficulties therein), one surprising paragraph instructs historical officers to avoid “embarrassing incidents” or “unflattering statements” unless absolutely necessary.