The Government Auditors Would Prefer Not to Be Audited

The administration ordered federal employees to explain covered contract and grant payments in writing, with those explanations feeding monthly reports to DOGE's administrator. Its stated purpose was to make spending transparent and employees "accountable to the American public." Apparently the public was supposed to appreciate the arrangement without asking too many questions about the recipient.

On October 13, the Supreme Court agreed to hear the administration's challenge in U.S. DOGE Service v. U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, No. 25-1103. The underlying plaintiff is Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW. The dispute concerns discovery to determine whether DOGE's central office is an agency covered by the Freedom of Information Act. The Court has not decided that coverage question.

Judge Christopher Cooper's April 15, 2025 order permitted questions and documents about DOGE's structure and authority, including final directives to agencies. It also allowed testimony from acting administrator Amy Gleason, whose declaration the government used to seek summary judgment. The order would let CREW question the factual account offered against it. Washington has developed a confidentiality problem around the follow-up question.

The government's objection deserves a fair hearing. Presidential advisers need room for candid advice. DOJ argues that compelling internal communications and a senior official's deposition before deciding whether FOIA applies could hand litigants much of the disclosure they seek without establishing any entitlement to it. Its petition invokes separation of powers and the Supreme Court's Cheney precedent: courts should consider narrower alternatives before forcing the executive branch into burdensome privilege fights. Being influential does not automatically make an adviser an agency.

The courts have already drawn some lines. Cooper rejected several requests, including a deposition of another DOGE official. On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court found requests about DOGE recommendations and whether agencies followed them insufficiently tailored. CREW withdrew those requests; the appeals court excluded them on July 14 while allowing the remainder. The administration says that narrowing was inadequate. The discovery orders remain stayed pending the Supreme Court's judgment.

CREW argues that operational authority, rather than persuasive advice, is precisely what needs examining. Its requests exclude direct communications with the president. The administration's own orders make the curiosity reasonable. Trump directed agencies to give USDS "full and prompt access" to unclassified records and systems, consistent with law. His spending order required agency heads to review contracts with their DOGE team leads, and required those leads to send payment justifications to the administrator. Agency teams and the central office are not legally interchangeable. Finding out who directed whom is the point of the discovery, not a reason to assume the answer.

Nobody needs every presidential conversation published. Taxpayers do need a way to distinguish advice from government action. The administration built an accountability program around other people's obligation to explain themselves. It now wants strict limits on the questions that might establish its own. For an efficiency project, that is a remarkably elaborate way to say the inspection stops at this desk.

The Government Auditors Would Prefer Not to Be Audited

Sources