In a high-stakes legal move, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily stopped the release of internal records from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a Trump-era initiative created to overhaul federal bureaucracy. The decision came from Chief Justice John Roberts on May 23, 2025, and puts a pause on a lower court ruling that would have required the government to turn over key documents and force a top Trump adviser to testify.
At the center of the controversy is whether DOGE, which was led by entrepreneur Elon Musk and longtime Trump aide Amy Gleason, operated like a formal federal agency — or simply served in an advisory role. That distinction could determine whether it’s subject to federal transparency laws.
What Is DOGE and Why Is It Under Scrutiny?
The Department of Government Efficiency was launched under the Trump administration as part of an ambitious plan to trim what officials called “wasteful government spending.” DOGE was widely seen as a pet project of both Trump and Musk, combining business-style reforms with sweeping cuts across various federal departments.
However, critics argue that DOGE functioned more like a shadow government agency than a consulting group. The team reportedly played a role in dismantling USAID operations and cutting off major federal contracts. These actions raised red flags for watchdog groups and members of Congress, who questioned how decisions were being made — and whether DOGE was avoiding proper oversight.
That’s where the lawsuit from Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) comes in. The group filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request demanding internal communications, decision-making records, and details about the agency’s meetings. When those requests went unanswered, CREW sued.
Lower Court Demands Transparency
Earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper sided with CREW. In his ruling, the judge said it was “highly likely” that DOGE had crossed the line from being an advisory panel to acting as a full-blown federal agency. That would make it subject to FOIA.
Judge Cooper ordered the release of documents and also ruled that DOGE’s former administrator, Amy Gleason, must sit for a deposition by mid-June.
The Trump legal team quickly fired back, calling the order overreaching and arguing that it posed a threat to executive authority. They appealed to the Supreme Court, claiming the lower court ruling could open the door to “fishing expeditions” into the internal workings of any presidential advisory group.
Supreme Court Steps In — But Just for Now
Chief Justice Roberts’ decision doesn’t end the case — it just buys the Court more time to consider whether to take it up formally. The temporary stay blocks the immediate release of documents and delays Gleason’s deposition.
The move signals that the justices believe the case raises significant legal questions, particularly around the limits of executive privilege and the public’s right to information.
For now, the Trump administration avoids a potentially damaging wave of disclosures. But the pause also draws even more attention to the inner workings of DOGE, which some argue operated too far under the radar.
What Happens Next?
The Supreme Court hasn’t said whether it will hear the case in full, but legal experts believe the odds are growing. If the justices do take it up, the decision could redefine how presidential advisory bodies are regulated — and how far the executive branch can go without public oversight.
In the meantime, watchdogs like CREW say they’re not backing down. They argue that no matter the name or the structure, any government group making major decisions should be transparent and accountable.
This isn’t just a debate about one office. It’s a test of how open — or secretive — government can be when major power is exercised behind the scenes.
