Questions readers actually ask.

Every article is written from the public record: the rule in the Federal Register, the docket, the filing, the court opinion, the Fed statement. Works of the United States Government are not under copyright, which is what lets this site quote and restructure those documents at length rather than summarise them from a distance. The about page sets out the method in full.

Because we publish on a quality bar rather than a schedule. An event earns an article when a primary document exists or when independent sources corroborate it, and a quiet day is a real outcome rather than a hole to fill. A daily quota is the pressure that manufactures thin pages, and a thin page costs more credibility than a missed day.

Outbound links here go to the document - the bill, the docket, the opinion, the release - and never to another outlet's article about it. We do watch what other outlets are covering, the way a newsroom watches a wire, to tell an important document from a routine one and to corroborate a fact before stating it. That material is input. It is never reproduced here.

Because there is no reporter in the sense that byline implies. What this publication does is read primary documents carefully and explain what they change, and the author of record is Daily Federal itself. Inventing a person to sign that work would be the same lie in the structured data as it is on the page, so we do neither.

Federal writing is precise in a vocabulary that assumes you already have it, so the glossary defines the words the documents themselves use - a notice of proposed rulemaking is a specific stage with specific consequences, and a continuing resolution is not a budget. Terms are added when an article needs one. If you hit a word that has no entry, tell us and it will get one.

Use the contact form and pick Correction, which is first in the list on purpose. The most useful message is short and specific: the article, the sentence, and a link to the document that shows what it should say. We are reading the same public record you are, so a citation resolves in minutes what a description takes a day to untangle.

Corrections are handled before anything else and are the one category we will always answer. Messages are read by the people who write the site rather than by a routing queue, so a clear one is usually resolved the same day.

No. An article that was wrong gets corrected in place and says so, because a quietly deleted page is indistinguishable from a page that never existed and readers cannot audit what they cannot see. The correction is part of the article, not a separate apology somewhere else.

Enter your email address on the daily brief page or in the form at the bottom of any page. That is the only thing we ask for, and it is used to send the brief.

On the days there is something worth sending. It collects what the federal government did and what it changes, each item linked to the document behind it. If a day produced nothing that clears the bar, the brief says so instead of padding itself out - an email that always arrives full teaches its readers to stop opening it.

Every brief carries an unsubscribe link, and it takes effect immediately. If it ever does not work, tell us and we will remove the address by hand.

Yes, and a document is far more useful to us than a summary of one. The strongest message is a link to the filing, docket entry, opinion or release, plus one line on what changed and who it binds. Send it through the contact form. We cannot promise to cover it, and we will not say we did reporting we did not do.

No. There are no contributor or publisher accounts here and there are not going to be, because every article on this site is anchored to a primary document that a reader can go and check, and that claim only holds if one editorial standard applies to all of it. If you have something you think belongs on the site, the useful version is the document rather than the draft - see the question above.

Not as articles. A release is a primary source like any other and is read as one: it tells us what an organisation says it did, which is a fact about the organisation rather than a fact about the world. If it names a rule, a filing or a docket number, that is the part we will follow.

Start on the advertise page, which describes who reads this and how to reach us about it. We are not selling inventory yet, and we would rather say that plainly than take a booking against an audience figure we cannot evidence.

No. Nothing on this site is placed or paid for, and there is no arrangement under which that changes - a publication whose articles can be bought has nothing left to sell. Advertising, when it exists, will be visibly advertising and will sit outside the editorial run.

No, and the structural answer matters more than the promise: coverage here follows documents in the public record, so there is nothing for a commercial relationship to steer. If you ever believe an article reads otherwise, tell us and point at the sentence.

Yes - quote a passage, say it came from Daily Federal, and link to the article. For anything larger than a quotation, including republishing a piece in full or inside an internal newsletter or a commercial product, ask first through the contact form and we will almost certainly say yes in writing.

Those are not ours to license and mostly do not need one: works of the United States Government are not under copyright, so the rule, the opinion or the Fed statement behind an article is free for you to use directly. That is a licence for the DOCUMENT and never for another outlet's writing about it - or for ours.

Please report it with the page and what your software did, and treat it as a defect rather than a request. Every page here is built to be usable from the keyboard and by a screen reader, and every release is checked automatically for contrast, heading order and landmark structure - but an automated check finds a fraction of what a real user hits in a minute.