The Trump administration is once again seeking the intervention of the Supreme Court to halt proceedings against the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). On Wednesday, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer submitted an emergency application to the justices, requesting a pause on a federal judge’s order that mandates DOGE to disclose information in response to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit.
This legal move comes amid ongoing litigation initiated by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a watchdog group that filed the suit in February following their January FOIA request. CREW seeks documentation including communications involving DOGE’s administrator, Amy Gleason, and financial disclosures, all under the suspicion that these documents are vital for understanding DOGE’s role and classification as a federal ‘agency’ under FOIA. The crux of CREW’s argument is whether DOGE must comply with FOIA requirements.
President Donald Trump established DOGE with a strategic mission to modernize federal technology and boost governmental efficiency. Despite not being a cabinet-level agency, DOGE plays a crucial role in Trump’s broader agenda to streamline the federal government.
U.S. District Judge Christopher R. Cooper had previously approved CREW’s discovery request, ensuring expedited proceedings that also included a deposition of Gleason. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Cooper’s decision earlier this month, characterizing the discovery as “narrow” and “modest.” However, the Trump administration contends that such discovery intrudes on the confidentiality traditionally afforded to presidential advisory bodies, potentially impeding DOGE’s function of combating federal inefficiencies.
This plea for Supreme Court intervention occurs alongside another appeal concerning DOGE. Earlier in May, the Trump administration also requested the court to pause restrictions implemented by a federal judge in Baltimore, which limit DOGE’s access to the Social Security Administration’s records. The Court is presently deliberating on this appeal as well.
The resolution of these cases will have implications for the boundaries of executive privilege and the accessibility of governmental information to outside parties, particularly concerning advisory bodies involved in high-level governmental decision-making.