• Trump administration seeks Supreme Court intervention on DOGE's FOIA compliance.
• Claims DOGE is a presidential advisory body exempt from public records laws.
• Lower court ruled DOGE likely subject to FOIA, allowing watchdog access to documents.
• Arguments center on separation of powers and confidentiality in presidential advisory roles.

The Trump administration has requested the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a legal battle regarding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and whether it must comply with the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The administration contends that DOGE is a "presidential advisory body" within the White House, claiming it is exempt from FOIA requirements. This appeal follows a lower court ruling that granted the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) the ability to examine DOGE's operations and decision-making processes, according to Newsweek and ABC News.

The Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, emphasized the potential risks of requiring DOGE to submit to discovery, arguing that it could undermine the ability to receive candid internal advice due to concerns over executive privilege. In his emergency application, he claimed that a ruling requiring DOGE to comply with FOIA could disrupt the separation of powers, jeopardizing the confidentiality and candor vital for presidential advisors. He stated, “That order turns FOIA on its head,” highlighting the intrusive nature of the discovery process, according to The Hill and South China Morning Post.

This legal dispute escalated after U.S. District Judge Christopher Cooper ruled that DOGE likely qualifies as a government agency under FOIA, allowing CREW to probe its operations. The judge's decision included allowing depositions of DOGE's Acting Administrator, Amy Gleason, as part of its inquiry into the department’s considerable influence on federal policies. Cooper noted DOGE's significant authority in shutting down programs and contracts, directly contradicting the administration's claim of it functioning solely as an advisory body, according to CBS News and Reuters.

The emergency appeal by the administration signifies a broader campaign to protect DOGE from what they characterize as excessive oversight and transparency efforts that could hinder its operational goals. As legal tensions rise, the Supreme Court's eventual decision could have significant implications not only for DOGE but also for similar entities within the Executive Office of the President, impacting how transparency laws apply to advisory bodies, according to India Times and Newsweek.