A federal appeals court delivered a unanimous blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to shield the Department of Government Efficiency from public scrutiny last month, ordering the controversial agency to hand over internal documents and submit its leader to questioning under oath.
The December 18 ruling by the DC Circuit Court of Appeals keeps alive a transparency lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington that has divided federal judges and reached the Supreme Court twice in 2025.
At the center of the legal fight: whether DOGE operates as a standard federal agency bound by public records laws or exists as a protected presidential advisory body immune from disclosure requirements.
Table of Contents
What DOGE Does and Why Secrecy Matters
President Trump created DOGE through executive order on his first day back in office, tasking the entity with cutting government waste and modernizing federal operations. Former Tesla CEO Elon Musk served as the public face of the operation for months before stepping back to focus on his companies.
But DOGE’s actions went far beyond advice. The agency fired approximately 50 workers at U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, and gained access to Social Security Administration databases containing financial records and medical information for millions of Americans.
Government watchdogs say the public deserves to know who makes these decisions, under what authority, and with what oversight. The administration argues that forcing DOGE to release records would compromise confidential presidential advice.
How the FOIA Lawsuit Unfolded
CREW submitted a Freedom of Information Act request to DOGE on January 24, 2025, seeking basic information about the agency’s structure and personnel. When DOGE failed to respond, CREW filed suit in federal court on February 20.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper sided with CREW on March 10, ruling that DOGE likely qualifies as an agency subject to FOIA. Cooper found that executive orders gave DOGE power to “implement” changes rather than simply recommend them, and that DOGE had exercised “substantial independent authority” over federal programs.
The judge ordered DOGE to begin processing CREW’s requests immediately and preserve all relevant documents. On April 15, Cooper went further, approving CREW’s request for expedited discovery. He required DOGE to produce internal communications, answer written questions under oath, and make Acting Administrator Amy Gleason available for a deposition.
Government lawyers responded with a head-scratching claim: processing CREW’s request for two months of records would take three years. This came from an agency whose former leader, Musk, had declared on social media that “there should be no need for FOIA requests” because government data should be public by default.
Supreme Court Narrows Discovery Order
The Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court in May, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer arguing that CREW was conducting a “fishing expedition” into executive branch operations. Sauer warned that allowing the discovery would set a precedent forcing White House advisory offices to comply with public records requests.
On June 6, the Supreme Court sided with the administration in a 6-3 decision split along ideological lines. Chief Justice John Roberts and the conservative majority found that portions of Cooper’s discovery order were “not appropriately tailored” because they required disclosure of DOGE’s internal recommendations to agencies and whether those recommendations were followed.
The Court sent the case back to the DC Circuit with instructions to narrow the discovery order, citing “separation of powers concerns” about judicial oversight of executive branch communications. Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented without explanation.
Discovery remained paused while the case returned to the appeals court.
Additional Lawsuits Pile Up
CREW’s case represents just one front in a broader transparency battle. American Oversight filed suit in April claiming DOGE systematically violates federal record-keeping laws by using Signal messaging, Google Docs, and Mattermost, platforms that auto-delete messages or fail to preserve document drafts.
Democracy Forward sued the Treasury Department, Education Department, and Small Business Administration seeking records of DOGE’s influence over agency decisions on personnel, contracts, and policy changes.
Democratic members of Congress submitted their own FOIA requests in March, demanding answers about DOGE’s authority, which government databases its staff can access, and whether the agency serves public interests or Musk’s business interests. Musk’s companies have received more than $18 billion in federal contracts over the past decade.
Where the Case Stands in January 2026
The DC Circuit’s December ruling rejected DOGE’s latest attempt to block discovery but kept the pause in place for 90 days, giving the administration until mid-March to decide whether to appeal to the Supreme Court again.
Under the appeals court order, CREW will receive depositions from Gleason and another DOGE representative, plus documents and sworn answers to written questions if the stay expires without further appeals.
The legal outcome will determine whether future administrations can create powerful entities that operate in secret simply by calling them advisory bodies. CREW Executive Director Donald Sherman noted that despite DOGE’s reduced public profile in recent months, “it still exists, and it has had an unprecedented impact on the federal government and civil service.”
The doge transparency foia lawsuit enters 2026 with fundamental questions about government accountability still unresolved and both sides preparing for another potential Supreme Court showdown.
