The Trump administration faces legal challenges after taking down a federal spending transparency website that was legally required to be public, prompting a lawsuit from government watchdog organizations demanding its immediate restoration.
Quick Takes
- Multiple watchdog groups have sued the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and Director Russell Vought for removing a website that tracked federal spending.
- The website, which showed how taxpayer money was allocated to federal agencies, was legally mandated by the Consolidated Appropriations Acts.
- OMB Director Vought claims the system revealed sensitive and deliberative information, but the Government Accountability Office disagrees.
- The website had been publicly available since July 2022 before being taken down without explanation.
- This is the latest in a series of transparency concerns facing the Trump administration in 2025.
Government Watchdogs Take Legal Action
Citizens For Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Public Citizen Litigation Group, and the Protect Democracy Project have filed lawsuits against the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its Director Russell Vought. The legal actions follow the sudden removal of a public database that detailed how the federal government allocates taxpayer money to various agencies. The website had been operational since July 2022 as required by the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2022 and 2023, until it disappeared approximately two weeks before the lawsuit was filed. The removal occurred without any formal announcement or explanation from the administration.
The lawsuits were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging that the Trump administration has violated federal law by taking down the transparency tool. According to the legal complaints, Congress specifically mandated this transparency measure to prevent potential abuses of power and to strengthen congressional and public oversight of government spending processes. Without this publicly accessible information, advocates argue that taxpayers have no way to monitor how their money is being distributed or used by federal agencies.
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
Administration Defense and Critics’ Response
OMB Director Russell Vought has defended the removal of the spending database, arguing that the system could not be maintained because it required the disclosure of sensitive, predecisional, and deliberative information. This position has been challenged by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which formally disagrees with the administration’s reasoning. According to the GAO, the apportionments are legally binding decisions about how agencies can spend funds, not predecisional or deliberative documents that would qualify for exemption from disclosure requirements.
“The Trump administration’s illegal removal of the Office of Management and Budget’s apportionment website is yet another attempt to dodge transparency and accountability,” said Nikhel Sus.
The GAO further stated that while some specific apportionment information might contain sensitive data, not all of the information meets that standard. This counters the administration’s blanket removal of the entire database. Critics have pointed out that the website was particularly important for tracking funding allocations for new initiatives, including the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which was established under President Trump’s current term. Without the transparency portal, there are limited means to understand how these new programs are being funded.
Legal Requirements and Broader Implications
The Antideficiency Act mandates that the president provide federal agencies with congressionally-appropriated funds in installments, a process known as apportionment. Recent legislation enacted during the previous administration specifically required these apportionments to be made public through an accessible online database. The lawsuit claims that the removal of this website violates this explicit statutory requirement. Legal experts note that this case represents a significant test of congressional authority to mandate transparency measures in government operations.
“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.”
The lawsuit seeks an immediate court order to restore the website and ensure continued public access to government spending information. Democratic lawmakers have expressed concern about the website’s removal, suggesting it represents an attempt to shield the administration’s financial decisions from public scrutiny. Republican supporters of the administration have remained largely silent on the issue, though some fiscal conservatives have noted that transparency should remain a bipartisan priority regardless of which party controls the White House.
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
