The Trump administration faces a legal battle after shutting down a key transparency website that tracked federal spending, with watchdog groups claiming the move violates congressional mandates.
Key Takeaways
- Multiple watchdog organizations including CREW and Public Citizen have filed lawsuits against the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for removing a public spending tracking website.
- The removal of the apportionments database violates the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2022 and 2023, which legally require this information to be publicly available.
- OMB Director Russell Vought claims the system couldn’t be maintained as it required disclosure of sensitive information, but the Government Accountability Office disagrees.
- The website had been functioning since July 2022 before being taken down without explanation.
- Critics argue the shutdown prevents transparency in how the administration distributes congressionally-allocated funds to agencies.
Legal Challenges Mount Over Website Shutdown
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Public Citizen Litigation Group, and the Protect Democracy Project have all filed lawsuits against the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its Director Russell Vought in federal court. The lawsuits target the administration’s recent decision to take down a federal website that provided crucial information about how the government allocates taxpayer funds across federal agencies. According to court filings, the website was operational for nearly three years before being abruptly removed approximately two weeks before the litigation began.
The transparency website had been displaying apportionment data since July 2022 in compliance with Congressional mandates included in the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2022 and 2023. These documents detail exactly how the OMB directs federal agencies to spend funds that have been appropriated by Congress. Watchdog groups insist the information is essential for maintaining proper oversight of government spending and ensuring taxpayer dollars are allocated according to congressional intent rather than executive preference.
Competing Claims Over Legal Requirements
The Trump administration and OMB Director Vought have defended the website’s removal, claiming that maintaining the transparency portal required disclosing sensitive, predecisional and deliberative information. However, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) directly challenged this reasoning in an official response. The congressional watchdog stated that apportionments are legally binding documents rather than predecisional materials, thereby disagreeing with the administration’s justification for taking the site offline.
“The Trump administration’s removal of information showing its apportionment of federal funds is blatantly illegal,” said Wendy Liu.
The GAO further acknowledged that while some specific apportionment information might indeed contain sensitive data, this standard does not apply to all the content that was previously available on the website. The litigation highlights that according to federal law, specifically the Antideficiency Act, the president must provide federal agencies with congressionally-appropriated funds in installments, and the transparency of this process is mandated by recent legislation enacted during the previous administration.
The White House’s Office of Management and Budget was hit with a lawsuit that alleges it and Director Russell Vought are violating OMB’s congressional mandate to publicly post information detailing federal spending. https://t.co/aZIlNnFLJE
— Bloomberg Law (@BLaw) April 15, 2025
Concerns Over Government Efficiency Oversight
The lawsuit filed by the Protect Democracy Project specifically notes that the now-removed website was “the only public source of information on how DOGE (Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency) is being funded — information that Congress and journalists have used in reporting and oversight.” Without this resource, critics argue there is inadequate transparency regarding the operations and funding sources for the administration’s efficiency initiatives within the federal government.
“Congress mandated prompt transparency for apportionments to prevent abuses of power and strengthen Congress’s and the public’s oversight of the spending process,” the complaint reads. “Absent this transparency, the president and OMB may abuse their authority over the apportionment of federal funds without public or congressional scrutiny or accountability.”
CREW and other plaintiffs are requesting that the court order the OMB to restore the website immediately. The legal actions are currently proceeding in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, with multiple organizations coordinating their efforts to reinstate what they consider a vital tool for government accountability. The administration has not yet responded formally to the lawsuits beyond the initial statements from OMB leadership regarding their reasons for discontinuing the transparency portal.
Sources:
- Government Ethics Group Sues Trump Administration for Hiding Federal Spending Information from the Public
- OMB Sued for Shutting Down Federal Spending Transparency Site
- Trump administration sued after taking down public spending tracker
