In a bold move that could redefine governmental transparency, the Trump administration has rushed to the Supreme Court with an urgent plea to block a federal judge’s order forcing the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to cough up documents under a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit.
SCOTUS Blog reported that the crux of this legal showdown is a battle over whether DOGE, a presidential advisory body, must comply with FOIA requests, pitting the administration against Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) in a high-stakes debate over separation of powers.
Let’s rewind to January 20, 2025, when President Donald Trump established DOGE to spearhead his vision of modernizing federal tech and boosting government productivity.
Though not a cabinet-level entity, DOGE has been deeply involved in efforts to trim federal bloat across agencies. It’s a mission that resonates with those of us who’ve long grumbled about bureaucratic waste.
Just days after DOGE’s creation, on January 24, 2025, CREW fired off a FOIA request demanding communications involving DOGE administrator Amy Gleason, staff exchanges, and financial disclosures.
By February 20, with no response, CREW escalated to a lawsuit in a Washington, D.C., federal court, hoping to snag documents before Congress finalized a funding bill.
CREW didn’t stop at paperwork—they pushed for expedited discovery to classify DOGE as an “agency” under FOIA, even requesting to depose Gleason and access lists of contracts, grants, and positions DOGE targeted for cuts. It’s a fishing expedition that could make even the most patient conservative raise an eyebrow.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper largely sided with CREW, approving Gleason’s deposition and demanding swift responses from DOGE.
That ruling must have stung the administration, which sees DOGE as a critical tool for reform, not a pinata for progressive activists to whack.
On May 14, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit refused to pause Cooper’s order, calling it “narrow” and “modest.” Narrow? Tell that to the DOGE team facing intrusive discovery while trying to streamline a bloated government.
Undeterred, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer took the fight to the Supreme Court around May 21, 2025, arguing the order “clearly violates the separation of powers.” He’s got a point—when does oversight become overreach, especially for a body advising the president?
Sauer also warned that this ruling “will significantly distract” from DOGE’s mission to root out federal waste. If you’re skeptical of endless government spending, that distraction sounds like a deliberate roadblock to much-needed reform.
Adding fuel to the fire, Sauer noted that CREW’s win gives them “a significant part” of what they’d get if they prevailed on FOIA merits. That’s a backdoor victory that could chill candid advice to the president, undermining the confidentiality needed for honest policy discussions.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice John Roberts ordered CREW to respond to the government’s request by noon on May 23, 2025. The clock is ticking, and the stakes couldn’t be higher for an administration already juggling multiple fronts.
Let’s not forget another legal headache—on May 2, 2025, the Trump team filed a separate emergency appeal with the Supreme Court to halt a Baltimore judge’s order limiting DOGE’s access to Social Security Administration records over privacy concerns. That case still awaits a ruling, proving DOGE is under siege from all angles.
Trump’s vision for DOGE, as he put it, is to maximize “governmental efficiency and productivity.” That’s a noble goal in an era where taxpayers are tired of footing the bill for inefficiency, yet every step forward seems to hit a judicial wall.
The broader question looms: should a presidential advisory body like DOGE be subject to the same scrutiny as a full-fledged agency? For conservatives wary of an overreaching judiciary, this feels like a power grab dressed as transparency—turns out, even good intentions can have unintended consequences.