Supreme Court to consider watchdog lawsuit seeking Elon Musk DOGE files

The United States Supreme Court will review a legal battle concerning whether public disclosure laws apply to the Department of Government Efficiency, an initiative led by tech billionaire Elon Musk during Donald Trump's presidency.

The decision to take up the case marks the second time the nation's highest court has stepped into the lawsuit filed by the government watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known as CREW. The organization is demanding access to records detailing the early activities of the cost-cutting entity, commonly referred to as DOGE.

At the core of the dispute is whether DOGE operates as a traditional federal agency or as an advisory panel to the executive branch. CREW contends that the body exercised substantial independent authority over federal functions, which would make its files subject to disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act.

The Trump administration petitioned the Supreme Court to take up the matter after lower courts ruled in favor of the transparency advocates. Administration attorneys argue that DOGE functions purely as a presidential advisory council and is therefore exempt from standard federal disclosure mandates. Justice Department lawyers warned that compelling such records to be released compromises the confidentiality and independence required by presidential advisers, conflicting with constitutional separation-of-powers principles.

The case previously reached the Supreme Court in June 2025, when the conservative majority determined that an initial order by US District Judge Christopher Cooper requiring the government to release files was overly broad. However, following that intervention, an appeals court panel again supported CREW, permitting fast-tracked processing of the disclosure requests and authorizing a sworn deposition of Amy Gleason, who serves as acting administrator for DOGE.

Government attorneys protested that decision, arguing that the appellate panel disregarded earlier guidance from the high court regarding executive branch protections. In contrast, CREW attorney Nikhel Sus said lower courts have consistently agreed that the group deserves the information necessary to evaluate the extent of DOGE's authority. Sus asserted that citizens have a right to understand the administration's broader actions to restructure the federal bureaucracy.

DOGE previously claimed that its initiatives resulted in tens of billions of dollars in federal budget reductions. Independent analysts have faced challenges in verifying those totals, however. A review by the Government Accountability Office revealed that some reported spending cuts involving terminated contracts, grants, and leases were inaccurate, lacked documentation, or involved cancellations initiated prior to DOGE's creation.