TRUMP ADMINISTATION ACCUSED OF VIOLATING FOIA FROM WATCHDOG

Since President Donald Trump’s second term began in January 2025, his administration has faced mounting accusations of violating the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a cornerstone of government transparency that grants the public access to federal agency records. Legal challenges, reported by outlets like The New York Times, CBS News, and NPR, center on the administration’s alleged withholding of documents related to controversial initiatives, notably the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and actions targeting institutions like Harvard University. Watchdog groups, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and American Oversight, have filed lawsuits claiming the administration is obstructing FOIA requests to shield sensitive operations, prompting debates about executive privilege and public accountability. These cases, combined with criticisms from congressional leaders and posts on X, highlight a broader pattern of alleged non-compliance that threatens the transparency FOIA is designed to ensure.

Key Allegations: DOGE and FOIA Evasion

The most prominent accusations involve the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), a task force led by Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy to streamline federal operations. In February 2025, CREW filed a lawsuit against DOGE, alleging it failed to process FOIA requests for records about its activities, personnel, and cost-cutting measures, such as workforce reductions and the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development. A federal judge, Christopher Cooper, ruled in March that DOGE is likely subject to FOIA due to its “substantial authority over vast swathes of the federal government,” including the power to cancel contracts and terminate employees. The Trump administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, with Solicitor General John Sauer arguing that DOGE, as a presidential advisory body, is exempt from FOIA and that complying with discovery requests violates the separation of powers. The New York Times and CBS News reported Sauer’s claim that subjecting DOGE to FOIA could expose confidential executive advice, potentially affecting other White House components like the National Security Adviser’s office.

CREW countered, stating, “DOGE continues to attempt to fight transparency at every level of justice,” emphasizing their intent to pursue records through the courts. The Supreme Court has yet to rule on the emergency injunction requested on May 21, 2025, leaving the case in limbo as depositions, including one with DOGE’s acting administrator Amy Gleason, remain stalled.

Additional FOIA Violations: Harvard and Judicial Nominee Cases

Another significant case involves the Trump administration’s actions against Harvard University. In April 2025, American Oversight sued the IRS, Department of Treasury, and Department of Education, alleging they unlawfully withheld records related to Trump’s efforts to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a move perceived as retaliation for the university’s perceived liberal stance. NPR reported that American Oversight’s executive director, Chioma Chukwu, accused the administration of “using the levers of the federal government to punish critics,” noting that the IRS failed to meet legal deadlines for releasing communications. Harvard also filed a separate lawsuit, arguing the administration’s actions violated due process, further amplifying concerns about political interference.

On July 11, 2025, posts on X from users like @lawcrimenews and @DragonflyNana72 highlighted a lawsuit by Democracy Forward, accusing the administration of violating FOIA by refusing to release documents about judicial nominee Emil Bove, a current DOJ official. The watchdog group claimed this withholding “defies the Constitution,” suggesting the administration is concealing information to avoid scrutiny of Bove’s background. These posts reflect public sentiment that such refusals indicate potential issues with nominees or policies.

Historical Context: FOIA Challenges in Trump’s First Term

The current accusations echo criticisms from Trump’s first term (2017–2021), where FOIA compliance deteriorated significantly. Columbia Journalism Review reported that FOIA rejections and redactions increased under Trump, with delays growing and lawsuits surging by 26% in fiscal year 2017 alone, according to The FOIA Project. BuzzFeed’s Jason Leopold noted a “culture of withholding” within agencies, with 78% of 823,222 requests in one year resulting in censored files or no response. Freedom.press highlighted cases like Parker Higgins’ two-year wait for TSA records, underscoring systemic delays. The Obama administration also faced criticism for FOIA backlogs, but experts like Adam Marshall of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press argued that Trump’s tenure saw a marked decline, with agencies actively thwarting requesters.

Notable first-term cases include a 2017 lawsuit by CREW and the National Security Archive, accusing the White House of violating the Presidential Records Act and circumventing FOIA by centralizing decision-making to avoid agency-level disclosures. The lawsuit cited the use of self-destructing messaging apps and deleted tweets as evidence of records mismanagement. Similarly, a 2017 FOIA lawsuit by Operation 45, Ryan Shapiro, and Jason Leopold sought FBI files on Trump’s alleged organized crime ties, but the agency’s refusal to release them prompted legal action.

Congressional and Public Pushback

Congressional Democrats have also raised alarms. On March 20, 2025, Rep. Gerald E. Connolly, Ranking Member of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, sent letters to 24 federal agencies, accusing the Trump administration of eliminating FOIA staff and undermining public access to information. Oversight Democrats reported that these actions “kindize the American people’s right” to transparency, exacerbating delays and denials.

Public sentiment on X reflects frustration, with users like @Jemsinger noting Democracy Forward’s lawsuit over withheld records on immigration enforcement actions, calling the administration’s tactics a “direct attack on transparency.” @ClesterRebecca cited California AG Rob Bonta’s lawsuit, joined by 19 other states, alleging the administration violated federal privacy laws by sharing Medicaid data with deportation officials, a case tangentially linked to FOIA disputes over immigration policy records.

Broader Implications

The allegations highlight a tension between executive privilege and public transparency. The Trump administration’s argument that DOGE and similar entities are exempt from FOIA raises questions about the scope of presidential advisory bodies, especially those wielding significant authority like DOGE’s reported role in slashing federal contracts and workforces. ABC News noted that Judge Cooper’s ruling challenges the administration’s claim, suggesting that DOGE’s actions—such as terminating programs—constitute “substantial independent authority” subject to FOIA.

These cases also reflect broader concerns about the erosion of FOIA’s effectiveness. The law, enacted in 1967, is designed to ensure government accountability, but experts like Nate Jones of The Washington Post have long criticized its inefficiencies, exacerbated under Trump. The surge in lawsuits—330 tracked by Just Security as of July 8, 2025—underscores the growing reliance on litigation to enforce transparency, a trend that burdens courts and delays access to records.

Conclusion

The Trump administration’s alleged violations of the Freedom of Information Act, from withholding DOGE records to obstructing disclosures about Harvard and judicial nominees, have sparked a wave of lawsuits and public outcry. Watchdog groups like CREW and American Oversight, alongside congressional leaders, argue that these actions undermine a critical democratic tool, echoing patterns of non-compliance from Trump’s first term. As legal battles unfold, with the Supreme Court poised to weigh in on DOGE’s FOIA status, the outcome will shape the balance between executive authority and public accountability. For now, the accusations highlight a persistent challenge: ensuring transparency in an administration accused of prioritizing secrecy over the public’s right to know.