Court Rules Department of Government Efficiency Subject to FOIA Requests in Scathing Decision
A recent ruling by United States District Court Judge Christopher R. Cooper has declared the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) subject to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), marking a significant victory for transparency and government accountability. The decision, characterized by its sharp wit and pointed observations, ultimately concludes that the United States Digital Service (USDS), the operational arm of DOGE, is likely covered by FOIA and that the public interest demands the expedited release of its records.
The ruling, filed on March 10 and publicized by Court Watch on March 14, stems from an ongoing legal battle involving the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), DOGE, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). CREW, a non-profit organization dedicated to holding American democracy accountable through legal action and investigations, had filed three FOIA requests with the OMB in December and January. These requests sought information regarding the OMB’s interactions with DOGE and basic details about the newly formed government agency, officially known as the United States Digital Service.
While FOIA requests can often languish within government agencies for extended periods, requesters can petition for expedited processing when a compelling public interest is at stake. In this instance, CREW argued that the information sought was crucial for informing Congress during its upcoming budget deliberations. The OMB acknowledged the urgency and agreed to expedite CREW’s requests. However, the USDS flatly refused to process CREW’s request, arguing that it was not an "agency" subject to FOIA regulations.
Judge Cooper rejected this assertion, delivering a sharply worded rebuke to DOGE’s position. He ruled that DOGE is, in fact, an "agency" and therefore obligated to comply with FOIA requests. While he denied CREW’s initial request for the information to be released by March 10, citing practical limitations, he affirmed the need for expedited processing and ordered the USDS to prioritize CREW’s request.
"Finding that USDS is likely covered by FOIA and that the public would be irreparably harmed by an indefinite delay in unearthing the records CREW seeks, the Court will order USDS to process CREW’s request on an expedited timetable and, after receiving proposals on a production schedule, to begin producing documents on a rolling basis as soon as practicable," Cooper stated in his ruling.
Furthermore, Judge Cooper directed both the OMB and DOGE to "preserve all records that may be responsive to CREW’s FOIA requests." This directive reflected a degree of skepticism regarding the agencies’ commitment to proper record-keeping practices, particularly within the USDS. "This evidence gives rise to the possibility that representatives of the Defendant entities may not fully appreciate their obligations to preserve federal records," he wrote. "This is especially true for USDS, many of whose staffers are reported to have joined the federal government only recently and, to put it charitably, may not be steeped in its document retention policies."
The core of the legal argument revolved around whether DOGE met the definition of an "agency" under FOIA. The legislation defines an agency as encompassing "any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government (including the Executive Office of the President)."
DOGE contended that its primary function was to advise and assist the President, which would exempt it from FOIA requirements. However, Judge Cooper found that CREW was likely to demonstrate that DOGE wielded significant independent authority, thus classifying it as an agency under FOIA. He highlighted three key pieces of evidence supporting this conclusion.
First, he noted that the executive orders establishing DOGE appeared to grant it substantial authority independent of the President. Second, he pointed to public statements made by Elon Musk and the President that indicated DOGE was indeed exercising such independent authority.
Judge Cooper then referenced Musk and Trump’s social media posts to illustrate this point. He cited Trump’s announcement of DOGE shortly after the election, in which the President stated that the agency would have the power to "dismantle Government Bureaucracy, slash excess regulations, cut wasteful expenditures, and restructure Federal Agencies."
The judge also highlighted Musk’s boastful claim that "We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper." Cooper noted that these statements suggested that both the President and USDS leadership viewed the department as possessing the authority to make significant cuts across the federal government.
This public boasting, according to the court, reinforced the third point: that DOGE had demonstrated its independent authority through concrete actions, such as the purported dismantling of USAID and the placement of thousands of government employees on administrative leave. "The Court need not stretch to conclude that USDS likely drove the charge to shutter USAID, and conducting such mass firings evidently requires substantial authority," the ruling stated.
Judge Cooper’s decision also criticized DOGE’s conduct during the proceedings. He noted that when asked to defend its position before the court, DOGE declined to provide specific arguments, merely stating that CREW’s arguments failed for "multiple independent reasons" without elaborating. "USDS cannot escape the consequences of refusing its opportunity to refute any of CREW’s allegations suggesting that USDS is acting with substantial independent authority," the court said.
Ultimately, Judge Cooper concluded that "USDS likely qualifies as an agency for the purposes of FOIA." While he acknowledged that the original deadline for releasing the documents before the budget fight was unrealistic, he emphasized the importance of expediting the process.
"The rapid pace of USDS’s actions…requires the quick release of information about its structure and activities. That is especially so given the secrecy with which USDS has operated," he concluded.
This ruling represents a significant setback for DOGE’s efforts to operate outside the purview of public scrutiny and a resounding victory for transparency and government accountability. It underscores the importance of FOIA as a tool for ensuring that government agencies are held responsible for their actions and that the public has access to information about how its government operates. The expedited release of information about DOGE’s structure and activities is crucial, given the agency’s rapid actions and the secrecy surrounding its operations. This ruling serves as a reminder that government agencies, regardless of their perceived importance or mandate, are ultimately accountable to the public and subject to the laws that ensure transparency and open government.
