A new report is raising serious concerns about transparency inside Washington state government under Governor Bob Ferguson.
According to Axios reporter Melissa Santos, the governor’s office implemented a policy last summer requiring most communications from all state agencies, including emails and responses to reporters, to be routed through and approved by the governor’s office before being released.
Internal communications obtained through public records requests show that agency staff were explicitly instructed not to mention the governor’s office at all when explaining delays to reporters, even though that office is the one controlling the process.
Gov. Ferguson's office rolled out a policy last summer requiring most agency media communications — including email replies to reporters — to go through them. They also have told agency staff not to tell reporters about this media policy. pic.twitter.com/FOoiiASD3K
— Melissa Santos (@MelissaSantos1) April 28, 2026
Instead, staff were told to use carefully crafted language such as: “We have adopted a new process for responding to inquiries and are working diligently to meet your deadline…”
The policy has contributed to delays in releasing public information about federal shutdown impacts, bridge repair plans, and vaccine access, among other topics, according to records obtained by Axios.
It also has been used to dodge questions, according to agency staff. #waleg pic.twitter.com/UMBs9N7D91
— Melissa Santos (@MelissaSantos1) April 28, 2026
In other words, the people slowing down the information flow didn’t want their role disclosed.
Internal emails show WA agency officials concerned about their ability to relay information to Washington residents and do their jobs. "This is a painful and arduous process," one staffer wrote.
"We've missed opportunities to share key information with the public." #waleg pic.twitter.com/wHQQ28shvJ
— Melissa Santos (@MelissaSantos1) April 28, 2026
This policy has reportedly already contributed to delays in getting critical public information out, including updates on federal shutdown impacts, infrastructure projects, and vaccine access.
Even more concerning, internal emails suggest the policy has been used to avoid answering difficult questions altogether.
In some cases, Gov. Bob Ferguson has gotten personally involved in reviewing and editing press releases and talking points, contributing to delays. Ferguson requested changes to a second draft of an I-5 construction press release last fall, for instance. #waleg
— Melissa Santos (@MelissaSantos1) April 28, 2026
For example, state health officials were reportedly instructed to decline interview requests about funding shortfalls affecting the Women, Infants, and Children (WIC) program, specifically to avoid scrutiny over budget decisions.
The frustration isn’t just coming from reporters. Internal emails show agency staff themselves are struggling with the process. Some described it as “painful” and said it has caused missed opportunities to share important information with the public.
Ferguson also personally reviewed interview talking points before state epidemiologist Scott Lindquist was cleared to speak with Politico about bird flu last July, according to an email from a Ferguson staffer. The staffer apologized to DOH officials for the delay. #waleg pic.twitter.com/4Hn3D8sH72
— Melissa Santos (@MelissaSantos1) April 28, 2026
There are also reports that Ferguson has personally reviewed and edited press releases and even talking points for interviews, further slowing down communication.
Axios noted that staffers from three previous Washington governors said no such policy existed under prior administrations.
Ferguson’s communications team defended the change, saying a new administration brings new processes and that “change can be hard.”
But critics would argue this isn’t just “change”—it’s a shift toward tighter message control at the expense of transparency.
This report also raises broader questions.
Why are press availabilities limited? Why are reporters sometimes left out of events unless specifically invited? Why are some not responded to at all?
Perhaps the most notable part of this story is where it came from. Axios is not typically aligned with conservative criticism of government. So, when even a mainstream outlet is highlighting transparency concerns, it suggests the issue may be bigger than politics.
At the end of the day, this isn’t about left vs. right. It’s about whether the public is getting timely, accurate information from its government, or whether that information is being filtered, delayed, or withheld.
