This “burden” objection makes little sense. A narrowly tailored three-day travel itinerary request is not a fishing expedition, not a warehouse search and not a demand for years of agency records. It concerns one identifiable official, one limited time window and one discrete category of documents: calendars, travel logs, movement records, security itineraries, expense records or scheduling materials. Under FOIA, an agency cannot simply recite “too burdensome” like a magic incantation. It must explain with specificity why the search would be unreasonably difficult, what systems were searched, what volume of records is implicated and whether narrower processing or redaction could resolve any claimed concern.
The obvious legal problem is proportionality. Three days of travel records should be among the easiest categories to locate because federal officials do not move invisibly. Travel is scheduled, approved, reimbursed, staffed and documented. If sensitive security details exist, FOIA already provides exemptions and redaction tools. That does not justify refusing the search altogether.
The proper response is to process the records, withhold only lawfully exempt portions and provide a Vaughn-style explanation. “Too great a burden” sounds less like law and more like bureaucratic fog machine.
In other words, it's bullshit.