In a late move that cloaks one of the most controversial arms of Donald Trump’s revived presidency in temporary secrecy, the U.S. Supreme Court has hit the brakes on lower court orders demanding transparency from the Department of Government Efficiency—an agency born of executive fiat and billionaire ambition.
At the heart of the case is a watchdog group’s pursuit of clarity. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has been pushing for documents from DOGE, the Elon Musk-advised government body turbocharged after Trump’s return to power. The group suspects that DOGE isn’t just advisory but acts with the force and opacity of a full-fledged government agency—thus falling under the federal Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Their suspicions found traction with U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper, who earlier ruled that DOGE must comply with information requests and submit its acting administrator, Amy Gleason, for questioning. He noted that the department operates with “unusual secrecy,” and Trump’s own executive orders implied DOGE holds “substantial independent authority.”
But the Justice Department wasn’t having it. It urged the high court to intervene, warning that the decision imperiled the sanctity of presidential advice and blurred the boundary between official governance and private counsel. An appellate court had already refused to stop the lower court’s order, leaving the Biden-nominated Judge Cooper’s ruling in force—until now.
By issuing what’s known as an administrative stay, the Supreme Court hasn’t ruled one way or the other on the merits. It’s merely bought itself more time to decide whether to grant the full request from the government to keep DOGE’s operations behind closed doors as litigation continues.
CREW’s original request centers on DOGE’s role in sweeping federal cutbacks and high-profile dismissals during Trump’s early second-term blitz. The group argues that if DOGE acts like a government agency, it should be accountable like one.
For now, the vault remains closed. But the question lingers in the halls of power: when a shadow agency claims to serve the public while operating like a private syndicate, who gets to look behind the curtain—and when?
