Filed Date: Feb. 11, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This is a Freedom of Information Act case against the "Department of Government Efficiency" and the Office of Management and Budget seeking communications involving Elon Musk and his key staff.
This case concerns a legal battle over government transparency and access to public records. On February 11, 2025, American Oversight, a nonpartisan nonprofit committed to promoting transparency in government, filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, the U.S. DOGE Service, the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, the U.S. Digital Service, and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The lawsuit, brought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), 5 U.S.C. § 552, and the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, sought to compel the defendants to produce records related to communications involving Elon Musk and his key staff. American Oversight is represented by in-house counsel, including Elizabeth Haddix and David Kronig.
In November 2024, following the U.S. presidential election, then-President-elect Donald Trump announced that Elon Musk would lead a newly formed entity, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The purpose of this department was initially unclear, with concerns about whether it functioned as a government agency or a private advisory group. On January 20, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order No. 14158, which formally established DOGE and restructured the U.S. Digital Service (USDS) into the U.S. DOGE Service. This order also created a temporary organization within USDS tasked with implementing the administration's technology and efficiency agenda over the next 18 months. Despite being classified as a government agency under 5 U.S.C. § 552(f)(1), DOGE's operations were allegedly shrouded in secrecy. Reports surfaced that DOGE officials, including Musk, had gained access to sensitive government systems, engaged in policy decision-making, and issued direct orders to federal employees, raising concerns about executive overreach and unauthorized influence.
On January 30, 2025, American Oversight submitted two FOIA requests to the U.S. DOGE Service and OMB: IG Key Terms Request (Tracking No. OMB-25-0252), seeking internal communications related to the sudden removal of inspectors general from 17 federal agencies, and IG Communications Request (Tracking No. OMB-25-0253), requesting records of communications between DOGE officials and members of Congress regarding these firings.
American Oversight's complaint alleged that the abrupt terminations of inspectors general across multiple federal agencies raised serious concerns about government integrity and potential misconduct. In response, the organization submitted FOIA requests seeking records related to these dismissals and requested expedited processing under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E)(i). Despite the statutory requirement for a prompt response, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) acknowledged receipt of the requests on January 31, 2025, but failed to issue a determination within the required timeframe.
Meanwhile, between January and early February 2025, officials from the newly established Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) were reported to have gained unauthorized access to at least 15 federal agencies, including USAID and the Treasury Department. DOGE personnel allegedly froze funding and reduced staffing at USAID, prompting District Judge Carl Nichols to issue a temporary injunction on February 7, 2025 (Am. Foreign Service Assoc. v. Trump, 25-cv-352, ECF No. 15). The group also reportedly accessed the Treasury Department's financial systems, leading to an emergency injunction by District Judge Paul Engelmayer, and took control of human resources and financial operations at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), raising concerns that it was systematically dismantling regulatory agencies.
Further compounding transparency concerns, DOGE officials allegedly used encrypted and ephemeral messaging platforms like Signal and Slack, potentially in violation of federal record-keeping laws. In response to these developments, on January 22, 2025, American Oversight sent a formal preservation letter to Elon Musk, reminding him of DOGE's legal obligations under the Federal Records Act. The complaint alleged that the defendants' failure to process the FOIA requests in a timely manner violated FOIA regulations.
Through this complaint, American Oversight sought a court order compelling the defendants to expedite processing, a declaratory judgment affirming that the requested records must be disclosed, and injunctive relief to ensure FOIA compliance. Additionally, the plaintiff requested attorneys' fees and litigation costs under 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(4)(E).
On March 5, 2025, plaintiffs filed an amended complaint adding three FOIA requests from February 2025 concerning DOGE deployments, messaging apps, and command structure. It also updated the factual background to include subsequent agency actions, thereby expanding the alleged FOIA violations and clarifying the requested relief.
That same day, District Judge Beryl A. Howell issued a Standing Order in American Oversight v. U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, et al., Civil Action No. 25-409 (BAH), pending in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The order outlined procedural requirements for case management, including deadlines for filings, discovery procedures, and motion practices. It mandated the submission of a Joint Meet and Confer Report within 14 days of the defendants' answer and set specific rules for handling FOIA cases, emphasizing judicial efficiency and compliance with procedural obligations. This order signaled that the case was actively progressing through its pretrial stages.
On April 2, 2025, the court granted American Oversight's Motion for a Preservation Order, compelling DOGE, its sub-entities, and OMB to preserve all records responsive to the FOIA requests and disclose whether such records had been preserved to date. The court cited concerns that DOGE operated with unusual secrecy, may not have issued adequate litigation holds, and that many DOGE staff were unfamiliar with federal records retention obligations. The court found that a preservation order was necessary to ensure compliance with both the FOIA and the Presidential Records Act, especially given DOGE's use of ephemeral communications systems and its refusal to stipulate to record preservation obligations.
Defendants responded to the amended complaint on April 21, 2025, and subsequently filed an amended answer on April 24. On June 2, plaintiffs moved for limited discovery to assess whether DOGE wielded independent authority sufficient to qualify as an "agency" under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Developments since June 24, 2025, were influenced by parallel litigation in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, No. 25-cv-511 (D.D.C.) and related mandamus proceedings. On June 6, 2025, the Supreme Court granted an administrative stay, construed the government's stay application as a petition for certiorari, vacated the D.C. Circuit's prior denial of mandamus, and remanded with instructions to narrow discovery; the Court emphasized that FOIA "agency" status cannot "turn on the entity's ability to persuade" and counseled restraint regarding intra-Executive Branch communications. 145 S. Ct. 1981 (2025). On July 14, 2025, the D.C. Circuit, on remand, granted mandamus in part, excluding Interrogatories 6 and 8 and RFAs 2, 4, 6, 8, and 10 from the district court's April 15 order and dissolving the administrative stay. Order, In re U.S. DOGE Serv., No. 25-5130 (D.C. Cir. July 14, 2025) (per curiam). On July 25, 2025, in the CREW case, District Judge Christopher R. Cooper denied DOGE's summary judgment motion as premature in light of potential discovery after higher-court review.
On August 5, 2025, OMB provided a processing update stating that it had no records for three of American Oversight's eight FOIA requests and that five requests remained pending. On August 20, 2025, District Judge Beryl A. Howell ordered the parties to show cause why this case should not be stayed pending resolution of discovery in the related CREW litigation. On September 3, American Oversight opposed an indefinite stay (ECF 24), citing the disfavor of stays tied to separate cases and harms from FOIA delay, while USDS and OMB supported a temporary stay (ECF 25), pending appellate guidance; OMB stated it would continue processing. On September 10, 2025, the court stayed this case pending final resolution of the CREW discovery dispute and ordered a joint status report within 14 days of that final resolution; the court later set the next joint status report for December 8, 2025.
As of November 1, 2025, the stay remained in effect, with the next joint status report due December 8, 2025. The April 2 preservation order remained in effect.
Summary Authors
Karma Karira (5/7/2025)
Emma Vayda (6/24/2025)
Clay Canady (11/1/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69630062/parties/american-oversight-v-us-department-of-government-efficiency/
Howell, Beryl Alaine (District of Columbia)
Haddix, Elizabeth (District of Columbia)
Kronig, David (District of Columbia)
Bardo, John (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69630062/american-oversight-v-us-department-of-government-efficiency/
Last updated Nov. 27, 2025, 2:14 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 1.0 & 2.0 FOIA cases
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 11, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
American Oversight is a nonpartisan, nonprofit watchdog organization dedicated to government transparency and accountability.
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: Yes
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
Department of Government Efficiency (- United States (national) -), Federal
U.S. Digital Service (- United States (national) -), Federal
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (- United States (national) -), Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552
Other Dockets:
District of District of Columbia 1:25-cv-00409
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Relief Granted:
Preliminary injunction / Temp. restraining order
Source of Relief:
Content of Injunction:
Issues
General/Misc.:
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: