The DOGE FOIA lawsuit is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, a case filed in February 2025 that asks whether the Department of Government Efficiency must answer Freedom of Information Act requests like other federal agencies. A federal district judge has ruled DOGE is likely covered by FOIA and ordered discovery into how the entity actually operates. The Supreme Court narrowed that discovery in June 2025, the D.C. Circuit carried out the narrowing in July, and as of mid-2026 the government has a second petition pending at the Supreme Court. No records have been produced to CREW, and the acting administrator’s deposition has not taken place.
Why DOGE’s Legal Status Is the Whole Fight
FOIA reaches most of the executive branch, but a unit inside the Executive Office of the President is covered only if it wields “substantial authority independently of the President.” Purely advisory bodies are exempt.1FedScoop. Trump Asks Supreme Court to Block Production of DOGE Information From Lower Court
On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order renaming the U.S. Digital Service as the “United States DOGE Service,” placing it inside the Executive Office of the President, and creating a temporary sub-organization scheduled to expire on July 4, 2026. The order also defined “agency” in a way that excluded the Executive Office and its components.2The White House. Establishing and Implementing the President’s Department of Government Efficiency
The administration’s position is that DOGE is advisory and owes the public nothing under FOIA. Critics point to DOGE’s reported role in directing federal layoffs, canceling contracts, and accessing agency payment systems as evidence it exercises far more than advisory power. DOGE’s leadership added confusion: the White House named career official Amy Gleason as acting administrator, while Trump publicly described Elon Musk as heading the organization. Government court filings maintained that Musk was neither the administrator nor a formal employee, only a “special government employee” advising the president.3Center for American Progress. How Is DOGE Abusing Its Power
How the Lawsuit Started
CREW submitted two FOIA requests to the Office of Management and Budget seeking communications between OMB employees and DOGE-affiliated individuals, organizational charts, financial disclosures, and communications between DOGE personnel and staff at other federal agencies. On January 24, 2025, CREW filed a separate FOIA request directly with the U.S. DOGE Service seeking records about the new entity’s structure and operations.4Court Listener. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service
DOGE did not respond, taking the position that it was an advisory entity not subject to FOIA.5American Immigration Council. DOGE Must Make Records Available to the Public On February 20, 2025, CREW sued in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, case number 1:25-cv-00511, naming the U.S. DOGE Service, OMB, and the National Archives and Records Administration among the defendants.4Court Listener. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service
Judge Cooper’s Ruling and Discovery Order
On March 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper issued an opinion concluding that DOGE is likely an “agency” subject to FOIA. Reading the executive orders that created it, Cooper found they “appear to endow USDS with substantial authority independent of the President,” and noted that DOGE was established not simply to advise but to “implement” the president’s agenda by modernizing federal technology and directing government operations.6Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. Judge Rules DOGE Likely Subject to FOIA, Must Give CREW Documents
Cooper issued a preliminary injunction requiring document preservation and expedited processing of CREW’s FOIA requests. On April 15, 2025, he granted expedited discovery, ordering DOGE to produce documents about its structure, staff, and activities, and requiring Gleason to sit for a deposition. The point was to build a factual record on the threshold question: does DOGE exercise enough independent authority to qualify as an agency?1FedScoop. Trump Asks Supreme Court to Block Production of DOGE Information From Lower Court
The Government’s Appeals
The administration filed a mandamus petition with the D.C. Circuit, arguing the discovery order violated separation of powers by forcing disclosure of internal executive branch deliberations. It leaned on the Supreme Court’s 2004 decision in Cheney v. United States District Court, which counsels judicial restraint when discovery reaches into the executive branch.7Supreme Court of the United States. In re U.S. DOGE Service Stay Application
The D.C. Circuit paused discovery through an administrative stay in April 2025. On May 14, 2025, a three-judge panel denied the mandamus petition, finding the government had forfeited its Cheney arguments by failing to raise them in the district court. The panel ruled that longstanding precedent permitted limited discovery to analyze an entity’s functional status under FOIA.8Politico. Supreme Court DOGE FOIA Appeal
On May 21, 2025, the administration filed an emergency stay application at the Supreme Court, characterizing the discovery as “extraordinarily overbroad and intrusive” and arguing it forced DOGE to hand over the very records at issue before the court had decided whether FOIA applied.7Supreme Court of the United States. In re U.S. DOGE Service Stay Application Document production was due June 3 and Gleason’s deposition was set for June 13.
What the Supreme Court Decided in June 2025
On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court sided with the government. In an unsigned order, the majority treated the stay application as a petition for certiorari, granted it, vacated the D.C. Circuit’s decision, and sent the case back with instructions to narrow the discovery. The Court found that portions of the order requiring the government to reveal “the content of intra–Executive Branch USDS recommendations and whether those recommendations were followed” were “not appropriately tailored,” citing separation-of-powers concerns that warranted “judicial deference and restraint.”9Supreme Court of the United States. U.S. DOGE Service v. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, No. 24A1122
The Court also preserved the underlying principle that the government does not get the final word on its own transparency obligations, writing that whether an entity qualifies as an agency under FOIA “cannot turn on the entity’s ability to persuade.” Justices Sotomayor, Kagan, and Jackson indicated they would have denied the government’s request.10SCOTUSblog. Supreme Court Sides With Trump in Two DOGE Suits
Where the Case Stands Now
On July 14, 2025, a D.C. Circuit panel implemented the Supreme Court’s instructions. It granted mandamus in part, striking specific interrogatories and requests for admission that probed the substance of DOGE’s internal recommendations. CREW withdrew its own discovery requests related to “recommendations” made by DOGE employees, which the panel found satisfied the narrowing requirement. The rest of the discovery order was left intact, and the administrative stay in place since April was dissolved.11U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Order in Case No. 25-5130
The government then petitioned for rehearing or rehearing en banc, arguing the panel had not gone far enough and that DOGE’s FOIA status was a pure legal question that could not be resolved through discovery at all. The D.C. Circuit ordered CREW to respond, and CREW did so in November 2025. The rehearing petition remains pending.12Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. CREW v. U.S. DOGE Service
At the district court, Judge Cooper had ordered the government to produce all documents not excluded by the circuit panel within 14 days of the July ruling. On July 17, 2025, both sides agreed to stay the discovery schedule while the appellate proceedings continued. On July 25, Cooper denied the government’s motion for partial summary judgment as premature, noting further discovery might still occur.12Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. CREW v. U.S. DOGE Service
In April 2026, DOGE, its acting administrator, Musk, and other government defendants filed a second petition for certiorari at the Supreme Court, asking the justices to take up the discovery dispute again.13Mealey’s Litigation Report. DOGE, Others Seek 2nd Supreme Court Review of Discovery Orders in FOIA Case No records have been produced to CREW through discovery, and Gleason has not been deposed.
The July 2026 Expiration
The executive order that established DOGE’s temporary organization set July 4, 2026, as its termination date. As of late 2025, administration officials said DOGE continued to operate and rejected reports it was winding down, and there has been no announced extension of the charter. Officials said DOGE’s core principles were being “institutionalized” through OPM and OMB.14Federal News Network. DOGE and Its Long-Term Counterpart Remain With a Full Slate of Modernization Projects Underway Whether the expiration moots the FOIA litigation or sharpens the stakes for preserving records is an open question with the second cert petition pending.
Other DOGE Transparency Suits
CREW’s case is the most prominent, but not the only one seeking DOGE records or challenging its access to federal data.
American Oversight filed a FOIA lawsuit against DOGE on February 11, 2025, in the D.C. district court, later amending it to add requests for Musk’s calendars, communications, employment records, and staffing information.15American Oversight. American Oversight Files Amended FOIA Lawsuit Against DOGE In an April 2025 case, the group sued DOGE under the Federal Records Act and FOIA, alleging DOGE personnel used Signal and Google Docs to circumvent federal records laws. That case remains open.16American Oversight. American Oversight v. DOGE, Musk, Davis, Gleason, and Rubio
Democracy Forward filed a FOIA suit on March 7, 2025, seeking communications and policy documents related to DOGE’s influence at Treasury, the Department of Education, and the Small Business Administration.17Democracy Forward. FOIA Lawsuit Seeking Transparency Around the Influence of DOGE on Federal Decision-Making With the Electronic Privacy Information Center, Democracy Forward also sued DOGE, OPM, and Treasury on February 10, 2025, in the Eastern District of Virginia, alleging illegal seizure of personal data. A judge denied emergency preliminary relief, finding the alleged risks of misuse “too speculative absent concrete misuse,” but the case remains active.18Civil Rights Litigation Clearinghouse. Electronic Privacy Information Center v. U.S. Office of Personnel Management
On February 7, 2025, the ACLU submitted FOIA requests to more than 40 federal agencies seeking records about DOGE’s access to sensitive data. When the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs failed to comply, the ACLU sued both in April 2025. As of late 2025, the VA had produced multiple interim responses, while several other agencies reported no responsive records.19ACLU. U.S. DOGE Service Access to Sensitive Agency Records Systems Multiagency FOIA
A coalition of 19 state attorneys general, led by Connecticut Attorney General William Tong, sued the Trump administration and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on February 7, 2025, alleging that granting DOGE personnel access to the Treasury Department’s central payment system was unlawful.20Office of the Connecticut Attorney General. AG Tong Sues to Block DOGE Access to Confidential Records