Filed Date: Feb. 21, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenges the Department of Government Efficiency's ("DOGE") classification of its records as "presidential records" and therefore not subject to the Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA").
On February 11, 2025, Trump issued Executive Order 14210 (“the EO”) that laid out DOGE’s role in “eliminating waste, bloat, and insularity” and instructed DOGE to work with agencies in implementing new hiring plans. According to the EO, the Administrator of DOGE was required to submit reports to the President regarding implementation of the EO. DOGE began to take action under a "guise of secrecy," as DOGE employees were prohibited from using various communications subject to FOIA, while gaining access to sensitive government data and records. DOGE claimed that its recordkeeping policies and practices were protected under the Presidential Records Act (“PRA”) and beyond the scope of FOIA.
On February 21, 2025, Project on Government Oversight Inc., a frequent FOIA requester, filed this lawsuit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, naming Donald Trump, DOGE, U.S. DOGE Service (“USDS”), U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization (“USDSTO”), and the Administrator of DOGE (collectively “DOGE Defendants”) as Defendants. The Plaintiff alleged that Defendants wrongfully treated DOGE records as presidential records not subject to FOIA, and that the DOGE Defendants' record retention policy violated the Federal Records Act. Plaintiffs sought 1). declaratory relief that Defendants’ policy and practice of treating DOGE Defendants’ records as non-agency records subject to the PRA was arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law, and 2). injunctive and mandamus relief to comply with their statutory duties to treat the DOGE Defendants’ records as agency records subject to the FRA and the FOIA.
On Claim I, Plaintiff argued that as government agencies, the DOGE Defendants were subject to the recordkeeping requirements of the FRA and their records should be publicly accessible through the FOIA. Plaintiff sought declaratory judgment that Defendants’ policy and practice of treating DOGE and USDS records as non-agency records subject to the PRA were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
On Claim II, Plaintiff argued that all Defendants were required to treat the records of DOGE Defendants as agency records subject to the FRA and publicly accessible through the FOIA; by adopting a policy and practice of treating these agency records as outside the scope of FOIA, Defendants violated their “clearly mandated ministerial duties” under 44 U.S.C. 64. §§ 3101, 3102, and 3105. Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief and mandamus compelling Defendants to comply with their statutory duties to treat the records as agency records.
On Claim III, Plaintiffs argued that the Defendant Administrator violated FRA, 44 U.S.C. § 3101, by treating the DOGE Defendants’ records as presidential records under the PRA and outside the scope of FOIA. Plaintiffs also argued that the Defendant Administrator failed to create and implement a recordkeeping policy under the FRA, which requires that each agency “make and preserve records containing adequate and proper documentation of the organization, functions, policies, decisions, procedures, and essential transactions of the agency[.]” 44 U.S.C. § 3101. Plaintiff sought declaratory relief on this claim that Defendant Administrator’s policy and practice of treating DOGE, USDS and USDSTO records as non-agency records subject to the PRA are arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to law.
On Claim IV, Plaintiff alleged the same claim as Claim IV but sought mandamus and injunctive relief compelling Defendant Administrator to comply with his/her statutory duty to make and preserve the records of DOGE Defendants as agency records subject to the FRA and the FOIA.
The case was assigned to Chief Judge James E. Boasberg.
On March 24, 2025, Plaintiffs filed a motion for preliminary injunction, seeking an order requiring Defendants to preserve all their records pursuant to the requirements of the FRA and a recordkeeping policy consistent with the FRA and implementing guidance from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).
The case is currently ongoing.
Summary Authors
Madilynn O'Hara (3/4/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69661712/parties/project-on-government-oversight-inc-v-trump/
Boasberg, James Emanuel (District of Columbia)
Weismann, Anne L. (District of Columbia)
Wyer, Kathryn L. (District of Columbia)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/69661712/project-on-government-oversight-inc-v-trump/
Last updated April 21, 2025, 3:33 p.m.
State / Territory: District of Columbia
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
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government (DOGE Status/Information Access)
Key Dates
Filing Date: Feb. 21, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
Project on Government Oversight Inc., a nonprofit and frequent FOIA requestor
Plaintiff Type(s):
Non-profit NON-religious organization
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: No
Class Action Outcome: Not sought
Defendants
President Donald Trump, Federal
Department of Government Efficiency, Federal
U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization, Federal
Administrator of DOGE, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
FOIA (Freedom of Information Act), 5 U.S.C. § 552
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: