A federal judge has ruled that Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency is wielding so much power that its records will likely have to be opened to the public under federal law.
Unprecedented Power of DOGE
U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper said the vast and “unprecedented” authority of DOGE, formally known as the U.S. Digital Service, combined with its “unusual secrecy” warrant the urgent release of its internal documents under the Freedom of Information Act.
“The authority exercised by USDS across the federal government and the dramatic cuts it has apparently made with no congressional input appear to be unprecedented,” Cooper wrote in a 37-page opinion.
Breaking the Secrecy
It’s the first significant ruling in a growing legal push to pierce DOGE’s secretive veil, a decision that undercuts Musk’s repeated insistence about the operation’s transparency — and the White House’s refrain that Musk is simply a run-of-the-mill presidential adviser with limited decision-making authority. Cooper said this representation is undercut by the weight of evidence that has trickled out in court and in the news.
The judge noted that DOGE’s speed and the fluidity of its leadership appear to be by design. He is ordering “rolling” productions of DOGE records to begin within weeks.
Implications and Transparency
“The rapid pace of [DOGE’s] actions, in turn, requires the quick release of information about its structure and activities,” Cooper wrote. “That is especially so given the secrecy with which DOGE has operated.”
Cooper leaned heavily on news reports suggesting that Musk’s operation had led to the firing of tens of thousands of government employees, the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development, a government-wide deferred resignation program, and widespread access to sensitive government databases for relative outsiders.
DOGE as a Cost-Slashing Operation
However, the judge also noted that the executive order Trump signed creating DOGE, coupled with public statements by the president and Musk, reinforced the notion that the cost-slashing operation was doing much more than simply giving advice.
The Trump administration has housed the DOGE operation within the Executive Office of the President in what appeared to be an attempt to shield it from FOIA. Most divisions within the EOP are exempt from FOIA, but a few deemed to exercise independent authority are subject to the transparency law. The Trump administration has also asserted that Musk himself isn’t part of the DOGE apparatus but is serving as a direct adviser to Trump.
Legal Demands and Transparency
Cooper’s ruling is a win for the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which sued to demand the urgent release of DOGE-related documents. Cooper stopped short of granting the group’s demand that the materials be made public prior to Congress’ consideration of a spending bill this week that could avoid or precipitate a government shutdown. But he agreed with the need for urgency.
“Congress needs the requested information in a timely fashion to use it effectively. The electorate also requires the expeditious production and publication of this information,” Cooper said. “Voters may seek to influence congressional representatives to take action responsive to USDS at any point along the road. And ‘[t]he dissemination of information’ sought by CREW would contribute ‘to an informed electorate capable of developing knowledgeable opinions and sharing those knowledgeable opinions with their elected leaders.’”
Criticism of Litigation Tactics
Cooper also offered some criticism of the way the Trump administration litigated the case, noting that its lawyers offered virtually nothing in the way of evidence about DOGE’s operations or management.
“Indeed, the Court wonders whether this decision was strategic,” Cooper said, noting that Trump administration lawyers had taken competing positions — including that DOGE qualifies as an “agency” under some sections of law but not others — “when it suits it.”
“Thus [DOGE] becomes, on defendants’ view, a Goldilocks entity,” Cooper wrote, “not an agency when it is burdensome but an agency when it is convenient.”
