The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear an appeal challenging court-ordered access to the inner workings of the government-cutting operation known as DOGE, once associated with Elon Musk.
The administration argues that the office, which operates within the Executive Office of the President, falls outside the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) due to its advisory role. In its petition, the Justice Department states that discovery requests covering staff information, internal directives and plans to access classified information—along with a deposition of DOGE administrator Amy Gleason concerning the operation’s structure and responsibilities—could hand over much of the information sought by the lawsuit before the court resolves whether FOIA applies.
The administration contends such demands risk intruding on protected executive-branch deliberations. It also faults the appeals court for its handling of earlier instructions to narrow requests, arguing that Solicitor General Sauer must enforce limits grounded in separation of powers.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), the group seeking the records, states DOGE has exercised substantial independent authority and should be treated as an agency subject to FOIA. CREW points to executive orders establishing DOGE and public statements about its role across the government, disputing the administration’s characterization of the office as merely advisory. The group also states it withdrew requests about DOGE’s recommendations after the justices intervened in June 2025. In its account, the remaining discovery addresses the office’s structure and authority, and the appeals court followed the instructions it received. CREW urges the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, warning that an overly broad exemption could allow administrations to place powerful operations within the president’s office while shielding them from records law.
The court must establish a workable boundary around presidential advice without undermining the records obligations Congress imposed on actual agencies. For the administration, this procedural step is significant; however, it does not declare DOGE exempt from FOIA or determine which records must be produced. Americans deserve to know what their government is doing with public funds and courts that respect constitutional limits on executive power. The challenge for the justices is to set an appropriate limit without letting the label “adviser” become a shield for disclosure obligations.
