In a heated legal standoff, the Trump administration has turned to the U.S. Supreme Court in an effort to block a lower court order that compels the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to comply with a discovery process linked to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit. The administration argues that DOGE—operating under the umbrella of the U.S. Doge Service (USDS)—functions solely as a presidential advisory body and therefore falls outside the scope of FOIA.
Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the Justice Department, contends that compelling USDS to hand over internal communications and records is not only premature but also unconstitutional. In the government’s view, the discovery order breaches the separation of powers by forcing a body that advises the president to divulge sensitive information, potentially threatening the confidentiality that supports executive decision-making.
“This order flips FOIA’s intent,” Sauer stated in the petition. “It grants the plaintiff substantive victory under the guise of determining the law’s applicability.”
Watchdog Group Demands Transparency from DOGE
The legal battle stems from a lawsuit filed by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), a nonprofit watchdog organization known for challenging government secrecy. CREW initially submitted FOIA requests to DOGE in search of documents shedding light on the agency’s internal structure, decision-making, and influence. When DOGE failed to comply, CREW sued.
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled in March that USDS was likely subject to FOIA and ordered it to fast-track the processing of CREW’s records request. Cooper emphasized that further delays would harm the public’s right to transparency and suggested that the watchdog had a strong case to make.
FOIA Discovery Heats Up
DOGE quickly moved to dismiss the case, arguing it should not be considered an “agency” under FOIA. But CREW countered with a request for limited discovery to determine whether USDS holds authority independent of the president—a key legal threshold for FOIA applicability. Judge Cooper approved the request, noting that USDS’s role remains unclear and that the executive orders establishing DOGE suggest it may be doing more than merely advising the president.
One such order, Cooper noted, tasked USDS with implementing the DOGE Agenda, rather than simply advising on it. That distinction, according to the court, could indicate operational power—potentially placing USDS under FOIA jurisdiction.
Appeals Court Rejects Government’s Objections
The administration’s efforts to stop the discovery process were also rebuffed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Although the appeals court initially issued a temporary stay, it lifted the order in mid-May and upheld the district court’s decision to allow limited discovery.
In its ruling, the court dismissed the government’s concern that the process would infringe on presidential authority. The panel emphasized that the discovery requests were narrow, targeting only documents created after January 20 and requesting two depositions.
“The discovery does not target the president or his closest advisers,” the court noted. “The government remains free to raise privilege objections on a case-by-case basis.”
The judges also criticized the administration’s claims of burden, pointing out that it failed to provide specific evidence explaining why the process would be unduly disruptive.
Supreme Court Petition Raises Alarm Over Confidentiality
In its emergency petition to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration escalated its rhetoric, calling the lower court’s order a major intrusion into presidential operations. The petition objects to a requirement that USDS identify every personnel, policy, or contract recommendation it made to federal agencies and explain whether those recommendations were followed.
The administration argued such disclosures strike at the core of the executive branch’s internal deliberations and should be protected under the deliberative-process privilege.
“USDS’s work is inherently pre-decisional,” the petition states. “Revealing its recommendations jeopardizes the confidentiality critical to honest and effective presidential advice.”
The Justice Department further accused CREW of launching a “fishing expedition,” using discovery to pry into areas unrelated to the core legal question of whether USDS qualifies as an “agency.”
CREW Slams DOGE’s Lack of Accountability
CREW maintains that DOGE wields extraordinary and largely unregulated influence over federal government operations. In court filings, the group described DOGE as an entity shrouded in secrecy, staffed by unnamed individuals whose employment status remains ambiguous and whose decisions have significant public impact.
“DOGE operates in the shadows, controlling government functions with no transparency or oversight,” CREW wrote in its lawsuit. “There is no evidence that it maintains official records or operates within legal boundaries.”
CREW has long argued that if an entity exercises real power—especially if it’s implementing policy rather than simply advising—the public has a legal right to understand how it functions.
DOGE Entangled in Broader Legal Controversies
This FOIA case is just one of several legal challenges swirling around DOGE. Earlier this month, the Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to reinstate DOGE’s access to Social Security Administration records after suffering losses in lower courts. That matter remains pending.
In a separate dispute, 14 U.S. states filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s delegation of authority to Elon Musk through DOGE, accusing the White House of bypassing Congress. A federal judge allowed the states to seek written discovery from Musk and DOGE, but the D.C. Circuit later blocked the move, stating the lower court should have addressed a pending motion to dismiss first.
