Supreme Court Halts Transparency Orders for Controversial Federal Efficiency Agency

In a move that has sparked concern among government transparency advocates, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily blocked a lower court’s ruling requiring the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to comply with public records requests. The decision grants the agency a reprieve from immediate scrutiny as a legal battle over its transparency obligations continues.

Chief Justice John Roberts issued the administrative stay late Friday, pausing orders from a Washington, D.C., federal district court that compelled DOGE to respond to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. No explanation accompanied the decision, adding to the growing unease surrounding an agency already accused of operating in excessive secrecy.

DOGE was created through Executive Order 14158, signed by former President Donald Trump on January 20. The order established the agency as part of an aggressive campaign to eliminate government inefficiency and hold federal departments accountable for spending. According to the directive, DOGE’s primary mission is to “implement the President’s DOGE Agenda by modernizing federal systems and streamlining bureaucratic operations.”

While supporters hail the agency as a bold step toward cutting red tape and improving government performance, critics argue that DOGE has amassed sweeping influence with virtually no public oversight.

The legal battle centers on a lawsuit filed by the nonprofit watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which claims that DOGE is not only making consequential decisions but doing so in the shadows. CREW argues that DOGE’s activities—and the information guiding its decisions—should be subject to FOIA, just like any federal agency.

“This body wields extraordinary authority, and the public deserves to know how and why decisions are being made behind closed doors,” CREW said in a statement.

CREW submitted a FOIA request to DOGE in January 2025, seeking records related to the agency’s structure, leadership, and decision-making processes. When DOGE failed to respond in a timely manner, the group filed a lawsuit, prompting the district court to order preliminary discovery to determine whether DOGE should legally be classified as an “agency” under FOIA.

In response, Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency application with the Supreme Court, arguing that DOGE is not a federal agency but an internal advisory body within the Executive Office of the President. As such, Sauer claimed, the organization falls outside the scope of FOIA.

“The district court’s order flips FOIA on its head,” Sauer wrote in the filing. “It allows plaintiffs to demand intrusive discovery as a way to prove the very thing that should first be established—whether DOGE is subject to FOIA at all.”

Sauer also warned that forcing an internal presidential advisory group to comply with FOIA could have long-term consequences for executive branch confidentiality. “Subjecting such a body to litigation-driven discovery threatens the openness and candor essential to presidential decision-making,” he stated.

CREW rejected the administration’s argument, saying the real issue is whether DOGE is functioning as an independent decision-making body. According to their legal brief, the agency’s scope, authority, and lack of public accountability go beyond mere advisory roles and merit classification as a full-fledged agency under both FOIA and the Federal Records Act.

“If the Department of Government Efficiency is making independent decisions that affect federal operations, then it should not be allowed to hide behind the veil of being a ‘presidential advisory body,’” CREW argued.

Further complicating the case is the involvement of high-profile business leader Elon Musk, who was appointed by Trump to lead DOGE shortly after its inception. Musk’s appointment, made outside traditional confirmation channels, expires at the end of the month. In recent remarks, Musk indicated he would step away from his government role to refocus his efforts on private ventures.

While the Supreme Court has yet to issue a final decision on whether DOGE must comply with FOIA, the administrative stay has temporarily shielded the agency from any immediate obligations. Legal analysts suggest the court’s eventual ruling could have sweeping implications for executive transparency and the limits of presidential authority to create quasi-governmental bodies.

Meanwhile, watchdog groups warn that delays in transparency undermine public trust in government.

“This case is about more than one agency,” said a spokesperson for CREW. “It’s about whether the American people have the right to know what their government is doing—especially when that government is restructuring how it functions, and who controls the flow of power.”

As the legal standoff continues, both sides are bracing for a high-stakes decision that could redefine the boundaries of federal transparency in the modern age.