WASHINGTON :The U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily halted efforts to compel the Trump administration to release thousands of documents related to the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a controversial entity created during Donald Trump’s presidency.
The order, issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, pauses lower court rulings that had required the release of internal documents and the deposition of DOGE’s administrator, Amy Gleason.
Background of the Case
The legal dispute began when watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request in January 2025, shortly after Trump resumed office.
The request sought records from DOGE, which has overseen major federal spending cuts, grant eliminations, and government layoffs.
The Trump administration argues that DOGE is merely a presidential advisory body and not a federal agency, and thus not subject to FOIA. Critics, however, point out that DOGE effectively replaced the U.S. Digital Service, now renamed the U.S. DOGE Service (USDS), and functions in a capacity that mirrors that of an executive agency.
Lower Court Ruling
In March, U.S. District Court Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that DOGE is “likely” subject to FOIA and that public interest warranted an expedited release of the documents.
Cooper ordered DOGE to begin turning over documents as soon as possible and to preserve all potentially relevant records.
According to filings, DOGE has about 58,000 documents, while the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) holds over 100,000 that may be relevant to the case.
Supreme Court Involvement
The Supreme Court’s administrative stay temporarily suspends Judge Cooper’s orders, granting the Trump administration a pause while the high court decides whether to take up the case.
CREW has argued in court that the lower court’s discovery order was narrowly tailored to assess whether DOGE operates as a government agency.
The group also emphasized that the Supreme Court rarely intervenes in ongoing discovery matters and that there is no justification for such extraordinary action in this case.
