The Trump administration is escalating a high-stakes legal fight over executive transparency, asking the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to intervene after a federal judge ruled the White House violated the law by pulling a public database that tracked how taxpayer funds are apportioned by federal agencies.
In an emergency motion, the Department of Justice requested an immediate administrative stay and a full stay pending appeal of a ruling by Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan. That ruling found the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) broke the law by taking offline the “Public Apportionment Database,” which had provided public insight into executive branch spending of congressionally allocated funds.
The D.C. Circuit issued a temporary administrative stay late Wednesday, halting Sullivan’s orders for now. The three-judge panel emphasized that the pause “is not to be construed in any way as a ruling on the merits” and asked government watchdog groups Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Protect Democracy Project to file responses by Friday at 5 p.m.
Judge Sullivan, known for prior rulings that drew criticism from Trump allies, had issued a scathing rebuke earlier in the week: “Stop violating the law!” He also temporarily stayed his own ruling until Thursday morning to give the government time to appeal—an appeal that materialized swiftly.
DOJ: Transparency Law Encroaches on Executive Power
In its appeal, the Trump administration argues that Sullivan’s ruling ignored the constitutional implications of Congress requiring OMB to publicly disclose its spending decisions.
The law in question stems from 2022 legislation signed by then-President Joe Biden, mandating that apportionment decisions be posted online within two days. That provision was strengthened by another law in 2023, creating an ongoing obligation the watchdog groups say the administration has flouted.
Sullivan granted partial summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs, ruling that the administration violated the Administrative Procedure Act by taking the database offline without proper legal authority or notice. He also dismissed the White House’s argument that the transparency rules infringe on executive prerogatives, calling that position “extravagant and unsupported.”
“The law is clear,” Sullivan wrote. “Congress has sweeping authority to require public disclosure of how the Executive Branch is apportioning the funds appropriated by Congress. There is nothing unconstitutional about requiring the Executive to inform the public how it is spending public money.”
Administration Pushes Back: “Irreversible Disclosure” Risks
In its emergency filing, the DOJ fired back, accusing the district court of brushing aside critical legal concerns.
“The court gave short shrift to the determinations made by the [OMB] Director… and failed to appreciate the ways in which the statute intrudes upon the Executive Branch’s constitutional prerogatives,” DOJ lawyers wrote. They warned that complying with the order would force the White House to “imminently and irreversibly” disclose potentially sensitive and deliberative information.
The DOJ also challenged the plaintiffs’ standing, arguing that the watchdog groups lacked legal grounds to sue in the first place. It further claimed the judge mischaracterized the administration’s objections as mere “policy disagreements.”
At the heart of the case is a debate over the separation of powers and whether Congress can force real-time transparency over executive branch spending decisions. The “Public Apportionment Database” was created after Trump’s first impeachment, which centered on the alleged illegal withholding of Ukraine military aid unless President Zelensky announced an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden.
While Sullivan’s ruling favored congressional oversight, the administration views the law as a serious threat to executive autonomy.
Next Steps
With the appellate court’s temporary stay in place, the Trump administration has until Monday at 10 a.m. to file a reply after the watchdog groups respond. The outcome could set a major precedent for future battles over executive transparency and the balance of power between branches of government.
