Connect with us

Politics

Musk’s Team Must Produce Documents to Comply With Open Records Laws, Judge Says

Published

on

Musk’s Team Must Produce Documents to Comply With Open Records Laws, Judge Says

A federal judge found on Monday that Elon Musk’s government-cutting unit is likely subject to public disclosure laws and must promptly turn over documents to a group that had sued for access to its internal emails.

In his order, Judge Christopher R. Cooper of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that the Department of Government Efficiency Mr. Musk leads had all the hallmarks of an agency that would typically be subject to laws like the Freedom of Information Act. He said Mr. Musk’s team appeared to be exercising “substantial authority over vast swathes of the federal government,” much greater than other federal agencies that are subject to the law.

Judge Cooper required both Mr. Musk’s team and the Office of Management and Budget to turn over email correspondence between their offices that the group suing had requested, and to “begin producing documents on a rolling basis as soon as practicable.”

The lawsuit, brought by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, had asked the court to compel those agencies to turn those records over by Monday, a time frame the judge said was unrealistic. It had argued that the group’s internal records were of extreme interest to the public as Mr. Musk and his associates have planned cuts and layoffs largely in secret while laying waste to vast sections of the federal government.

The group’s lawyers had also expressed alarm about reports that members of Mr. Musk’s team had deleted or failed to preserve encrypted text messages on platforms like Signal and emails sent from personal accounts, in what it described as violations of other federal regulations set by the National Archives and Records Administration.

Advertisement

In his ruling, Judge Cooper noted those concerns, writing that “this evidence gives rise to the possibility that representatives of the defendant entities may not fully appreciate their obligations to preserve federal records.”

Donald K. Sherman, the deputy director of CREW, said in an interview that the court decision “opens the door” for the public to obtain documents from Mr. Musk’s government-cutting initiative that would help it understand how it is operating.

“This is the first court to find that DOGE is subject to the Freedom of Information Act,” Mr. Sherman said. “It would hopefully provide some measure of accountability for the reckless and chaotic way that DOGE has been operating.”

A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The Trump administration has argued that as part of the executive branch, Mr. Musk’s office, which was formed as a temporary advisory unit, was not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. It has also taken actions to try to insulate it from public records requests or judicial intervention.

At a hearing on Friday, Jonathan Maier, a lawyer for CREW, called Mr. Musk’s unit a “black box agency that’s designed and dedicated to drastically cutting federal spending at virtually any cost.”

Advertisement

“We’re kind of grasping at straws here, without information,” he said. “DOGE, in its conception, is a fast-moving, essentially, agent of chaos that’s affecting government functions throughout the executive branch.”

Mr. Maier argued that the request was urgent, pointing to proposals by Senate Republicans to formally adopt cuts that the Department of Government Efficiency has ordered through the rescission process, by which a president can request that Congress cancel certain funds lawmakers have appropriated.

He said that understanding what programs may have been targeted by Mr. Musk’s team depended on the public’s ability to pierce the veil of secrecy surrounding the goals and processes Mr. Musk and his associates have adopted.

“We’re barreling toward either a government shutdown or a last-minute spending bill by March 14,” he said. Using an abbreviation for U.S. DOGE Service, he added, “Viability, in terms of that bill — and from the mouths of the appropriators themselves — turns on Congress’s ability to get details on how the new U.S.D.S. operates, and whether it’s poised to prevent, at its option, appropriated funds from being spent.”

Andrew Bernie, a lawyer for the government, said on Friday that it could take the government three years to produce the all documents requested, even on an expedited basis.

Advertisement

During arguments on Friday, Judge Cooper pressed lawyers for CREW to explain how Mr. Musk’s team differed from a lobbying firm or other outside actors that might look to influence Congress’s appropriations process with recommended cuts.

“Those outside influences don’t have the weight of the federal government and the White House behind them,” Mr. Maier said.

Even before issuing the opinion, Judge Cooper told lawyers for the government on Friday to advise the two offices to begin preserving documents that could be subject to the Freedom of Information Act under his coming order.

In February, the White House tried to designate Mr. Musk’s office as an entity insulated from public records requests or most judicial intervention until at least 2034, by declaring the documents it produces and receives presidential records.

That designation has a special legal meaning under a law called the Presidential Records Act. The law shields from the public all documents, communication trails and records from the president, his advisers and staff until five years after that president leaves office. The federal courts have ruled that White House entities that merely advise and assist the president are not subject to the Freedom of Information Act.

Advertisement

When CREW filed a public records request law under the law, DOGE denied the filing, claiming that it is not an agency but a presidential records entity exempted from the open records law.

But Judge Cooper found it more likely that Mr. Musk’s team has acted as an agency conducting its own operations than as a mere advisory entity to the president.

President Trump’s executive order establishing Mr. Musk’s office gave it “a defined staff,” Judge Cooper wrote, adding that it “is likely exercising substantial independent authority.”

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

Published

on

California sues Trump administration over ‘baseless and cruel’ freezing of child-care funds

California is suing the Trump administration over its “baseless and cruel” decision to freeze $10 billion in federal funding for child care and family assistance allocated to California and four other Democratic-led states, Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta announced Thursday.

The lawsuit was filed jointly by the five states targeted by the freeze — California, New York, Minnesota, Illinois and Colorado — over the Trump administration’s allegations of widespread fraud within their welfare systems. California alone is facing a loss of about $5 billion in funding, including $1.4 billion for child-care programs.

The lawsuit alleges that the freeze is based on unfounded claims of fraud and infringes on Congress’ spending power as enshrined in the U.S. Constitution. The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

“This is just the latest example of Trump’s willingness to throw vulnerable children, vulnerable families and seniors under the bus if he thinks it will advance his vendetta against California and Democratic-led states,” Bonta said at a Thursday evening news conference.

The $10-billion funding freeze follows the administration’s decision to freeze $185 million in child-care funds to Minnesota, where federal officials allege that as much as half of the roughly $18 billion paid to 14 state-run programs since 2018 may have been fraudulent. Amid the fallout, Gov. Tim Walz has ordered a third-party audit and announced that he will not seek a third term.

Advertisement

Bonta said that letters sent by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services announcing the freeze Tuesday provided no evidence to back up claims of widespread fraud and misuse of taxpayer dollars in California. The freeze applies to the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program, the Social Services Block Grant program and the Child Care and Development Fund.

“This is funding that California parents count on to get the safe and reliable child care they need so that they can go to work and provide for their families,” he said. “It’s funding that helps families on the brink of homelessness keep roofs over their heads.”

Bonta also raised concerns regarding Health and Human Services’ request that California turn over all documents associated with the state’s implementation of the three programs. This requires the state to share personally identifiable information about program participants, a move Bonta called “deeply concerning and also deeply questionable.”

“The administration doesn’t have the authority to override the established, lawful process our states have already gone through to submit plans and receive approval for these funds,” Bonta said. “It doesn’t have the authority to override the U.S. Constitution and trample Congress’ power of the purse.”

The lawsuit was filed in federal court in Manhattan and marked the 53rd suit California had filed against the Trump administration since the president’s inauguration last January. It asks the court to block the funding freeze and the administration’s sweeping demands for documents and data.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Politics

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

Published

on

Video: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

new video loaded: Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

transcript

transcript

Trump Says ‘Only Time Will Tell’ How Long U.S. Controls Venezuela

President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

“How Long do you think you’ll be running Venezuela?” “Only time will tell. Like three months. six months, a year, longer?” “I would say much longer than that.” “Much longer, and, and —” “We have to rebuild. You have to rebuild the country, and we will rebuild it in a very profitable way. We’re going to be using oil, and we’re going to be taking oil. We’re getting oil prices down, and we’re going to be giving money to Venezuela, which they desperately need. I would love to go, yeah. I think at some point, it will be safe.” “What would trigger a decision to send ground troops into Venezuela?” “I wouldn’t want to tell you that because I can’t, I can’t give up information like that to a reporter. As good as you may be, I just can’t talk about that.” “Would you do it if you couldn’t get at the oil? Would you do it —” “If they’re treating us with great respect. As you know, we’re getting along very well with the administration that is there right now.” “Have you spoken to Delcy Rodríguez?” “I don’t want to comment on that, but Marco speaks to her all the time.”

Advertisement
President Trump did not say exactly how long the the United states would control Venezuela, but said that it could last years.

January 8, 2026

Continue Reading

Trending