The Trump administration is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to step in and stop a government watchdog group from gaining access to documents and testimony related to the Department of Government Efficiency—better known as DOGE.
This relatively new office, which has drawn national attention for its sweeping authority and deep ties to Elon Musk, has already played a role in major government shake-ups, including the dismantling of foreign aid programs and massive contract cuts. Critics have warned that DOGE is operating in the shadows with little oversight. Now, a court fight over public access to its records is heating up.
What Is DOGE and Why It’s Controversial
DOGE was created during Trump’s current term as a cost-cutting task force aimed at slashing waste in government spending. But its actions have gone far beyond simple budgeting. Under its leadership, USAID was dismantled, several federal agencies saw mass layoffs, and hundreds of long-term contracts were canceled or rewritten.
While the White House has described DOGE as an internal advisory body that reports directly to the president, watchdog groups like Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) argue it behaves more like a federal agency—and therefore should be subject to the same transparency laws as others.
CREW filed a lawsuit demanding documents that detail DOGE’s decisions, internal operations, and communications. They also requested to depose Amy Gleason, DOGE’s acting administrator.
Lower Court Sides with Watchdog Group
Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that DOGE likely qualifies as a federal agency under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), meaning it must hand over the requested documents and make Gleason available for questioning.
The judge’s decision marked a significant win for transparency advocates, who have long suspected DOGE’s growing influence behind closed doors.
But the Trump administration is pushing back hard. After an appeals court declined to pause the ruling, the administration quickly filed an emergency request to the Supreme Court, asking for intervention to block the release of information until a final ruling is made.
The White House’s Argument
In its filing to the Supreme Court, the administration argues that forcing DOGE to release its internal documents—or allow its top official to be questioned under oath—would set a dangerous precedent.
Solicitor General John Sauer warned that such a move could harm DOGE’s mission and disrupt the president’s ability to seek honest advice from staff. The administration also emphasized the urgency of DOGE’s work, arguing that delays caused by court orders could undermine its efforts to eliminate government waste.
Sauer said that if the lower court’s ruling stands, the administration could be forced to reveal sensitive documents even before the Supreme Court has a chance to weigh in—an outcome they say would be irreversible.
What’s at Stake
For critics of the Trump administration, the case raises serious concerns about government accountability. CREW and other advocacy groups argue that if DOGE is allowed to operate without transparency, it could set a precedent for future presidents to create powerful entities that act beyond public view.
The Supreme Court now faces a choice: protect executive confidentiality or uphold the public’s right to know how powerful government bodies like DOGE operate.
Whatever the outcome, the case is expected to shape how much oversight watchdogs and the public will have over presidential task forces—especially ones that influence sweeping policy changes.
