Federal Judge Orders DOGE to Comply with FOIA Requests Amid Transparency Concerns

The Landmark Ruling on Government Transparency

In a significant development for government transparency and public accountability, a federal judge has ordered the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to comply with Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests. On March 10, 2025, U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper issued a comprehensive 37-page ruling that directly challenges the operational secrecy that has characterized DOGE since its inception. The judge’s decision represents a pivotal moment in the ongoing tension between executive authority and the public’s right to information about governmental operations.

The ruling specifically requires DOGE and the Office of Management and Budget to preserve records, provide an estimate of records to be shared by March 20, and meet with Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) to submit a joint status report by March 27. Judge Cooper emphasized the necessity for expeditious release of information regarding DOGE’s structure and activities, citing the “rapid pace” of the department’s actions and the “unusual secrecy” with which it has functioned. This decision mandates that DOGE begin releasing documents “on a rolling basis as soon as feasible.”

The case arose after CREW filed a lawsuit against DOGE in February, alleging unlawful refusal to comply with FOIA requests and ignoring demands for record preservation. The ruling represents a significant victory for advocates of open government and establishes an important precedent regarding the application of FOIA to newly created governmental entities with substantial independent authority.

Understanding FOIA and Its Importance to Democratic Governance

The Freedom of Information Act stands as a cornerstone of democratic governance in the United States. Enacted in 1966 and subsequently amended multiple times, FOIA establishes the legal framework through which citizens can request access to federal government records. The law codifies a presumption of openness, placing the burden on government agencies to justify withholding information rather than requiring requesters to justify access.

FOIA applies to records created or obtained by federal agencies that are under their possession or control at the time of the request. The law contains nine enumerated exemptions that permit—but do not require—agencies to withhold certain categories of information, including classified national security matters, confidential financial information, law enforcement records, and materials exempted by other statutes. Additionally, FOIA includes three “exclusions” that authorize agencies to treat certain law enforcement records as if they fall outside FOIA’s coverage.

The implementation of FOIA involves all three branches of government. Congress enacted the law and oversees its application, amending it when necessary to ensure it fulfills its intended purpose. The executive branch, comprising federal agencies subject to FOIA, processes requests and provides access to records. The judicial branch enforces FOIA through court review, with federal district courts authorized to order the production of improperly withheld records.

The importance of FOIA extends beyond mere information access. It serves as a vital check on governmental power, enabling citizens to monitor governmental activities, detect potential misconduct, and hold officials accountable. By facilitating public scrutiny of governmental operations, FOIA contributes to the prevention of corruption and the maintenance of public trust in governmental institutions.

The DOGE Controversy: Background and Legal Challenges

The Department of Government Efficiency, commonly known as DOGE, was established by President Donald Trump and is led by billionaire Elon Musk. The department was created from a pre-existing governmental IT entity known as the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) and has been instrumental in the administration’s extensive restructuring of the federal government. Since its formation, DOGE has been characterized by what Judge Cooper described as “unusual secrecy,” with reports indicating that its representatives have used external servers, refused to identify themselves to career officials, and communicated via encrypted messaging applications like Signal.

The controversy surrounding DOGE centers on its extensive authority and lack of transparency. According to court documents, DOGE appears to possess the power not only to evaluate federal programs but also to drastically alter or even eliminate them entirely. This substantial independent authority, coupled with the department’s operational secrecy, raised significant concerns among government watchdog organizations.

In February 2025, CREW filed a lawsuit after DOGE refused to process the organization’s FOIA requests. DOGE had claimed it was “not an agency subject to FOIA,” arguing that as a segment of the Executive Office of the President, it should be exempt from FOIA regulations. This position was rejected by Judge Cooper, who determined that DOGE exercised “substantial independent authority” that surpassed that of other parts of the executive office typically exempt from FOIA.

The legal challenge against DOGE is part of a broader effort by multiple organizations to increase transparency in the department’s operations. Other groups involved in similar actions include American Oversight, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Project on Government Oversight (POGO). These organizations have expressed concerns about DOGE’s extensive authority to dismantle federal agencies, alleged access to systems containing highly restricted data, claims of authority to summon federal law enforcement, and implementation of rapid government restructuring with minimal oversight.

Analysis of Judge Cooper’s Ruling

Judge Cooper’s ruling represents a significant interpretation of FOIA’s applicability to governmental entities. The judge rejected the Trump administration’s argument that DOGE, as part of the Executive Office of the President, should be exempt from FOIA. Instead, Cooper determined that DOGE possessed “substantial independent authority” that placed it within the scope of FOIA’s requirements.

The ruling emphasized several key factors in reaching this determination. First, Cooper noted that DOGE appeared to have the power not just to assess federal programs but to significantly alter or even abolish them entirely—a point the agency reportedly did not contest. Second, the judge highlighted the “unprecedented” nature of DOGE’s powers and the need for timely disclosure of information about its operations. Third, Cooper pointed to the “unusual secrecy” that had characterized DOGE’s activities, including reports about its use of external servers, employees’ refusal to identify themselves to permanent officials, and their use of encrypted communication methods.

In his 37-page decision, Cooper ordered several specific actions. He mandated that DOGE and the Office of Management and Budget preserve records sought by CREW, noting “the possibility that representatives of Defendant entities may not fully grasp their responsibilities to preserve federal records.” The judge also required the administration to submit a status report by March 20 estimating the number of documents involved and directed both parties to propose a timeline by March 27 for the gradual release of the documents.

While Cooper did not require the immediate release of all requested records, he did order that they be made available on an expedited basis. This approach balances the need for transparency with practical considerations regarding the volume of records and the time required for proper review and processing.

Implications for Government Accountability and Transparency

The ruling in the DOGE case carries significant implications for government accountability and transparency. By affirming that DOGE is likely subject to FOIA, the decision establishes an important precedent regarding the application of transparency laws to newly created governmental entities with substantial independent authority. This precedent may influence how future administrations structure and operate similar initiatives.

The case underscores the vital role of FOIA in ensuring that government operations remain visible and accountable to the public. As Donald Sherman, the executive director and chief counsel of CREW, stated following the ruling, “Now more than ever, Americans deserve transparency from their government.” This sentiment reflects the fundamental principle that democratic governance requires an informed citizenry with access to information about governmental activities.

The ruling also highlights the tension between executive authority and transparency requirements. While administrations may seek to structure certain operations to minimize external scrutiny, the court’s decision affirms that substantial independent governmental authority generally remains subject to transparency laws regardless of organizational placement within the executive branch.

For DOGE specifically, the ruling means that its operations will now be subject to greater public scrutiny. This increased transparency may influence how the department conducts its activities moving forward, potentially leading to modifications in its operational approach to ensure compliance with FOIA requirements.

The Role of Watchdog Organizations in Promoting Transparency

The DOGE case exemplifies the crucial role that watchdog organizations play in promoting governmental transparency and accountability. CREW, which initiated the lawsuit against DOGE, is one of several organizations that actively use FOIA to obtain information about federal activities that impact public interests. These organizations serve as intermediaries between government agencies and the general public, employing legal expertise and resources to navigate the complexities of FOIA litigation.

Watchdog organizations employ various strategies to promote transparency. They submit FOIA requests to obtain information about governmental activities, file lawsuits when agencies fail to comply with these requests, and disseminate the obtained information to educate the public about governmental operations. Through these activities, they help ensure that transparency laws fulfill their intended purpose of enabling public scrutiny of governmental actions.

The effectiveness of watchdog organizations depends on several factors, including their legal expertise, financial resources, and ability to navigate the FOIA process. The DOGE case demonstrates how these organizations can successfully challenge governmental entities that attempt to evade transparency requirements. By securing a court order requiring DOGE to comply with FOIA, CREW has established a precedent that may benefit future transparency efforts.

The case also illustrates the collaborative nature of transparency advocacy. Multiple organizations, including American Oversight, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Project on Government Oversight, have joined the effort to increase transparency in DOGE’s operations. This collaboration enables the sharing of resources, expertise, and strategies, enhancing the effectiveness of transparency initiatives.

Technological Considerations in Modern FOIA Implementation

The DOGE case raises important questions about the intersection of technology and transparency in modern governance. Reports indicating that DOGE representatives used external servers and encrypted messaging applications highlight the challenges that technological advancements pose for traditional transparency mechanisms.

As government operations increasingly rely on digital technologies, ensuring effective implementation of FOIA requires addressing several technological considerations. First, agencies must establish clear policies regarding the preservation and accessibility of electronic records, including communications conducted through encrypted platforms. Second, they must develop technological infrastructure capable of efficiently processing and responding to FOIA requests involving large volumes of electronic data. Third, they must balance legitimate cybersecurity concerns with transparency requirements, ensuring that security measures do not unnecessarily impede public access to information.

The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) presents both challenges and opportunities for FOIA implementation. On one hand, AI-driven tools can enhance efficiency in processing FOIA requests by automating the search, analysis, and redaction of electronic records. On the other hand, the use of AI in governmental decision-making raises complex questions about transparency and accountability, particularly regarding the explainability of algorithmic processes.

As agencies face increasing numbers and complexity of FOIA requests, technological solutions become increasingly important. End-to-end solutions that harness AI to manage and track requests and securely collect relevant information show promise in easing the burden of FOIA compliance while enhancing transparency. However, the effective implementation of these solutions requires careful attention to issues of accuracy, fairness, and accessibility.

Legal Mechanisms for Ensuring Government Transparency

The FOIA represents just one of several legal mechanisms designed to ensure government transparency and accountability. These mechanisms operate at various levels of government and address different aspects of transparency, collectively forming a comprehensive framework for promoting open governance.

At the federal level, in addition to FOIA, several laws contribute to governmental transparency. The Government in the Sunshine Act requires that certain meetings of federal agencies be open to public observation. The Federal Advisory Committee Act establishes transparency requirements for advisory committees that provide guidance to federal agencies. The Presidential Records Act ensures the preservation and eventual public accessibility of presidential records. Together, these laws create a multi-faceted approach to federal transparency.

State and local governments have enacted their own transparency laws, often modeled after federal legislation but adapted to address specific local concerns. These laws typically include open meetings provisions (sometimes called “sunshine laws”), public records access requirements, and conflict of interest disclosure mandates. The specific provisions and enforcement mechanisms vary across jurisdictions, reflecting different priorities and governance structures.

Legal accountability mechanisms extend beyond information access requirements to include constitutional provisions, legislative acts, codes of conduct, conflict of interest laws, citizen participation requirements, and judicial review processes. These mechanisms work together to prevent corruption and ensure that public officials remain answerable to the citizens they serve.

The effectiveness of these legal mechanisms depends on several factors, including clarity of legal requirements, adequacy of enforcement provisions, availability of resources for implementation, and public awareness and engagement. The DOGE case demonstrates both the strengths and limitations of current transparency laws, highlighting the ongoing need for vigilance and adaptation in ensuring effective governmental accountability.

Balancing National Security with Transparency Requirements

One of the most significant challenges in implementing FOIA involves balancing national security concerns with transparency requirements. FOIA includes exemptions that permit agencies to withhold information related to national security, but determining the appropriate application of these exemptions often involves complex judgments about potential security risks and public interests in disclosure.

Exemption 1 of FOIA allows agencies to withhold information that is properly classified pursuant to an executive order in the interest of national defense or foreign policy. This exemption recognizes the legitimate need to protect certain sensitive information from public disclosure. However, the application of this exemption requires careful consideration to prevent unnecessary withholding of information under the guise of national security concerns.

The DOGE case raises particular questions about this balance given the department’s extensive authority and operational secrecy. While certain aspects of DOGE’s activities may legitimately implicate national security concerns, the court’s ruling emphasizes that such concerns do not automatically exempt an entity from FOIA’s requirements. Instead, specific information within records may be withheld based on applicable exemptions, but the entity itself remains subject to the general transparency requirements of FOIA.

Effective balancing of security and transparency requires several elements. First, agencies need clear guidelines for determining when information genuinely implicates national security concerns. Second, robust oversight mechanisms, including judicial review, must exist to prevent overly broad application of security exemptions. Third, agencies should employ redaction processes that protect truly sensitive information while maximizing disclosure of non-sensitive portions of records. Fourth, periodic review of classified information should occur to identify materials that no longer require protection due to changed circumstances.

The challenge of balancing security and transparency reflects broader tensions in democratic governance between the need for certain governmental operations to maintain confidentiality and the fundamental principle that citizens in a democracy have a right to information about their government’s activities. The DOGE case represents one instance of courts navigating this complex terrain, seeking to uphold transparency principles while acknowledging legitimate security considerations.

The Future of FOIA and Government Transparency

As we look toward the future, several trends and developments are likely to shape the evolution of FOIA and government transparency more broadly. These include technological advancements, changing public expectations, administrative priorities, and legislative reforms.

Technological advancements will continue to transform both governmental operations and transparency mechanisms. The increasing volume and complexity of electronic records present challenges for FOIA implementation, but emerging technologies also offer potential solutions. AI-driven tools for processing FOIA requests, blockchain applications for ensuring record integrity, and advanced search capabilities for identifying relevant information may enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of transparency processes.

Public expectations regarding governmental transparency continue to evolve, with growing demands for proactive disclosure rather than merely reactive responses to specific requests. This shift is reflected in the development of online portals and databases that provide public access to governmental information without requiring formal FOIA requests. The future of transparency likely involves expanded proactive disclosure initiatives alongside traditional request-based access mechanisms.

Administrative priorities significantly influence FOIA implementation, with different administrations establishing varying approaches to transparency. The DOGE case illustrates how administrative decisions regarding organizational structure and operational practices can impact transparency, highlighting the importance of consistent legislative and judicial oversight to ensure that administrative changes do not undermine fundamental transparency principles.

Legislative reforms may address emerging challenges and strengthen existing transparency mechanisms. Potential areas for reform include updating FOIA to address technological developments, enhancing enforcement provisions to ensure agency compliance, clarifying the application of exemptions to prevent unnecessary withholding, and establishing more uniform compliance frameworks across agencies. The specific direction of these reforms will depend on political dynamics and evolving understandings of transparency needs.

The future effectiveness of FOIA and related transparency mechanisms will depend on continued vigilance and adaptation. As governmental operations evolve, transparency requirements must similarly evolve to ensure that the fundamental principle of public access to governmental information remains robust and meaningful.

Practical Implications for Legal Practitioners and Citizens

The DOGE ruling carries practical implications for both legal practitioners and ordinary citizens interested in accessing governmental information through FOIA. Understanding these implications can enhance the effectiveness of transparency efforts and promote more informed civic engagement.

For legal practitioners, the ruling provides important guidance regarding FOIA’s applicability to governmental entities. It clarifies that substantial independent authority, rather than mere organizational placement within the executive branch, determines whether an entity falls within FOIA’s scope. This clarification may inform strategies for challenging agency determinations regarding FOIA applicability in future cases.

The ruling also emphasizes the importance of record preservation in FOIA litigation. Judge Cooper’s preservation order, based on concerns that DOGE representatives might not fully understand their record-keeping obligations, highlights a potential area of focus for attorneys representing FOIA requesters. Ensuring proper preservation of potentially responsive records represents a crucial preliminary step in effective FOIA litigation.

For citizens seeking governmental information, the ruling reinforces the breadth of FOIA’s coverage and the availability of judicial review when agencies improperly withhold records. It demonstrates that persistent pursuit of information rights, particularly when supported by watchdog organizations with legal expertise, can overcome initial agency resistance to disclosure.

The case also illustrates the potential timeline for FOIA litigation. While the court ordered expedited processing, it established a phased approach rather than immediate disclosure, recognizing practical constraints in processing large volumes of records. This timeline provides realistic expectations for citizens engaging in FOIA requests involving complex or voluminous records.

Both practitioners and citizens can benefit from understanding the collaborative nature of effective transparency advocacy. The involvement of multiple organizations in challenging DOGE’s secrecy demonstrates how shared resources and expertise can enhance the effectiveness of transparency initiatives. Building coalitions and leveraging specialized knowledge represent important strategies for navigating the complexities of FOIA implementation.

Conclusion: The Ongoing Importance of Transparency in Democratic Governance

The federal judge’s order requiring DOGE to comply with FOIA requests reaffirms the fundamental principle that transparency represents an essential element of democratic governance. By ensuring public access to information about governmental operations, transparency mechanisms enable meaningful citizen participation, promote accountability, and foster trust in governmental institutions.

The DOGE case illustrates both challenges and opportunities in implementing this principle. It demonstrates how tensions between executive authority and transparency requirements can arise, particularly with newly created governmental entities exercising substantial independent authority. It also shows how legal mechanisms, watchdog organizations, and judicial review can work together to uphold transparency principles even in the face of resistance.

As governmental operations continue to evolve in response to technological developments, changing social conditions, and shifting political priorities, the importance of robust transparency mechanisms remains constant. The specific implementation of these mechanisms may adapt to address emerging challenges, but the underlying commitment to public access to governmental information represents a cornerstone of democratic governance that transcends particular administrative approaches or technological contexts.

The ruling against DOGE serves as a reminder that no governmental entity, regardless of its organizational placement or operational approach, stands entirely beyond the reach of transparency requirements in a democratic system. This principle, reaffirmed through judicial enforcement of FOIA, ensures that citizens retain their fundamental right to know how their government operates and to hold governmental actors accountable for their actions.

Citations:

1. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-says-musks-doge-must-release-records-operations-run-secrecy-2025-03-11/
2. https://www.forbes.com/sites/siladityaray/2025/03/11/federal-judge-rules-doge-must-disclose-records-about-its-operation-to-comply-with-federal-transparency-law/
3. https://www.foxnews.com/politics/judge-rules-doge-likely-subject-public-records-requests-says-department-operating-unusual-secrecy
4. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R46238
5. https://alec.org/model-policy/transparency-and-government-accountability-act/
6. https://getsdl.com/resources/blog/4-tech-trends-for-increasing-government-transparency-in-2025/
7. https://www.justice.gov/oip/media/1373461/dl?inline
8. https://www.scu.edu/government-ethics/resources/what-is-government-ethics/open-meetings-open-records-transparency-government/
9. https://epic.org/issues/open-government/foia/
10. https://www.principlesofdemocracy.org/government-dem
11. https://www.cnn.com/2025/03/10/politics/doge-freedom-of-information-act-foia-ruling/index.html
12. https://www.lawjournalnewsletters.com/2025/02/01/foia-in-2025-beat-the-backlog-and-avoid-lawsuits/
13. https://www.civicplus.com/blog/cxp/how-to-increase-government-transparency/
14. https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2024/03/modernize-foia-increase-its-sunshine-effect/394884/
15. https://www.govexec.com/technology/2024/10/federal-government-likely-receive-record-number-foia-requests-again-2024/400228/
16. https://www.citizensforethics.org/news/press-releases/judge-rules-doge-likely-subject-to-foia-must-give-crew-documents/
17. https://fas.org/publication/foia-opm-doge/
18. https://fedscoop.com/doge-foia-requests-federal-judge-crew/
19. https://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-resources
20. https://www.govexec.com/oversight/2025/03/judge-orders-doge-comply-foia-requests/403660/?oref=ge-mini-feed
21. https://www.cato.org/blog/government-efficiency-starts-rejuvenating-foia
22. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/11/judge-doge-foia-crew/82264573007/
23. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency-cost-efficiency-initiative/
24. https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/10/judge-orders-doge-record-release-00223151
25. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/02/25/2025-03138/ensuring-lawful-governance-and-implementing-the-presidents-department-of-government-efficiency
26. https://www.foia.gov/chief-foia-officers-council
27. https://www.justice.gov/oip
28. https://www.foia.gov/about.html
29. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/realitycheck/the_press_office/Transparency_and_Open_Government
30. https://www.foia.gov/foia-statute.html
31. https://www.fletc.gov/guide-foia-privacy-act
32. https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-bill/2055
33. https://www.foia.gov
34. https://www.justice.gov/oip/doj-guide-freedom-information-act-0
35. https://emilms.fema.gov/is_0029a/groups/65.html
36. https://foia.blogs.archives.gov/2022/10/27/understanding-the-office-of-government-information-services-part-3-4/
37. https://home.treasury.gov/footer/freedom-of-information-act
38. https://www.justice.gov/oip/government-transparency
39. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/the-government-accountability-offices-2025-high-risk-list/
40. https://www.slalom.com/us/en/insights/government-outlook-2025
41. https://www.foiaadvisor.com/blog/category/FOIA+News+(2025)
42. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/ensuring-accountability-for-all-agencies/
43. https://datafoundation.org/news/blogs/568/568-Data-and-Evidence-Policy-Trends-10-Government-Transformations-for-
44. https://www.federalregister.gov/index/2025/government-accountability-office
45. https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/02/radical-transparency-about-wasteful-spending/
46. https://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/foia/recent-requests/2025/foia-january.html
47. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wlw2NP72M3I
48. https://www.ourmidland.com/news/article/the-sun-is-setting-on-government-transparency-in-20214900.php
49. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2025/01/21/2025-00960/freedom-of-information-act-and-privacy-act-regulations
50. https://blogs.worldbank.org/en/governance/how-make-sense-government-accountability
51. https://www.foia.gov/faq.html
52. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/constitutional-law-i/government-accountability
53. https://www.mackinac.org/transparency-laws-are-designed-to-keep-the-government-accountable-but-do-they
54. https://brechner.org/2025/01/23/study-expanding-foia-private-companies/
55. https://thefga.org/legal-strategies/
56. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2019/10/15/2019-22624/promoting-the-rule-of-law-through-transparency-and-fairness-in-civil-administrative-enforcement-and
57. https://www.justice.gov/archives/oip/blog/foia-update-foia-affected-budget-constraints
58. https://www.commoncause.org/issues/government-transparency/
59. https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5187282-doge-open-records-judge-rules/
60. https://americanoversight.org/american-oversight-applauds-court-ruling-that-doges-inner-workings-cannot-be-concealed-from-public-view/
61. https://www.archives.gov/ogis/foia-compliance-program
62. https://oversight.house.gov/release/bipartisan-bicameral-leaders-seek-gao-review-of-foia-compliance-at-federal-agencies/
63. https://fiscal.treasury.gov/data-transparency/history-overview.html
64. https://oversight.house.gov/hearing/ensuring-agency-compliance-with-the-freedom-of-information-act-foia/
65. https://granicus.com/blog/foia-101-demystifying-public-records-laws-in-each-state/
66. http://quigley.house.gov/issues/transparency-and-government-reform
67. https://democracyfund.org/idea/project-2025-is-a-threat-to-our-democracy-heres-how-funding-accountability-work-can-help/
68. https://www.the-future-of-commerce.com/2024/10/21/government-trends-2025/
69. https://oversight.house.gov/release/comer-announces-hearing-on-the-2025-gao-high-risk-list/
70. https://about.bgov.com/insights/public-affairs-strategies/top-10-public-policy-issues/
71. https://www.sec.gov/foia-services/sec-foia-reports/2025-chief-foia-officer-report
72. https://www.usip.org/guiding-principles-stabilization-and-reconstruction-the-web-version/rule-law/accountability-the-law
73. https://www.ignet.gov/sites/default/files/files/f01c15.pdf