Introduction
The recent ABC News article covering the Trump administration’s emergency petition to the U.S. Supreme Court concerning a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit by watchdog group CREW has raised questions of transparency and executive power. With two lower courts already ruling that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) is likely subject to FOIA, users want to understand why the administration is now appealing the case to the highest court. This fact-check examines key claims and clarifies issues central to the controversy.
Historical Context
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), passed in 1966, is a federal law that allows the public to request access to records from any federal agency to promote transparency and accountability in government. However, FOIA does not automatically apply to every office; some advisory boards or entities close to the presidency have historically claimed exemption under the rationale of executive privilege. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), created under President Trump, has been under scrutiny for possibly operating like a typical federal executive agency despite being labeled an advisory body. The dispute centers on whether DOGE’s actions and structure cross the threshold for FOIA compliance.
Fact-Check Specific Claims
Claim #1: “The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency injunction to block proceedings…”
This claim is accurate. The Solicitor General submitted an emergency application to the U.S. Supreme Court to halt discovery proceedings in the FOIA lawsuit involving DOGE. Emergency stays of lower court decisions can be requested in cases where the government argues that irreversible harm may occur if the court process continues before final appeals are decided. This action is permissible under the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction and procedural norms.
Claim #2: “A federal judge in March determined that DOGE likely should be subject to the Freedom of Information Act.”
This is true. U.S. District Judge Chris Cooper found in an early 2025 ruling that DOGE is “likely” subject to FOIA. He based this conclusion on executive orders establishing the agency, public statements by President Trump, and the breadth of DOGE’s authority. While this was a preliminary finding rather than a final ruling, it allowed the lawsuit to proceed to the discovery phase — hence the administration’s emergency appeal.
Claim #3: “The administration has claimed that DOGE — as a presidential advisory board — is not subject to FOIA.”
This claim is accurate and well-documented. The Trump administration argued that DOGE operates as a presidential advisory board, not an executive agency, and thus falls outside FOIA’s scope. This argument hinges on the legal interpretation of FOIA’s applicability and whether DOGE functions independently enough or is purely advisory in nature. However, courts can and do review such cases to assess if an entity effectively operates as a federal agency based on its functions, authority, and integration into the executive branch.
Claim #4: “Such an effort… would expose private executive branch information.”
This statement reflects the administration’s legal reasoning but should be viewed critically. The Solicitor General argued that discovery would infringe on executive confidentiality. While executive privilege is a recognized principle in U.S. constitutional law, it is not absolute. Courts may override it in cases where government transparency and accountability are deemed more compelling. In other words, the claim is not false, but it frames a contested legal position as a certainty, which may mislead readers.
Conclusion
Upon reviewing the article and relevant court documents, the ABC News report accurately describes the procedural developments in the FOIA lawsuit against DOGE. The article avoids major factual misstatements but lacks deeper context regarding the legal history of FOIA and executive privilege, which would help readers fully understand both sides of the argument. The Trump administration’s appeal is legally permissible but controversial given two prior court rulings supporting transparency. This legal move does not automatically override those decisions and remains subject to review by the Supreme Court.
Encourage Readers to Take Action
If you want clarity on news like this and to fact-check stories that matter to you, download the DBUNK app today. Stay informed by following us on social media—we make fighting misinformation simple, accessible, and fast.
Link to Original Article
https://abcnews.go.com/US/trump-administration-asks-supreme-court-block-foia-case/story?id=122033808
