Politics
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.
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.”
“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.
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.
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.”
By John Ismay, Gilad Thaler, Nikolay Nikolov, Rafaela Balster, Stephanie Swart and Whitney Shefte
June 19, 2026
Politics
Reporter’s Notebook: How Trump’s surprise move on DNI confirmation upended key Senate deal on FISA
NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!
They didn’t know what to do.
Just before 4 a.m. ET on Wednesday, President Trump blindsided everyone in the U.S. Senate. In a post on Truth Social, the president declared he was “cancelling the Senate hearing” for his Director of National Intelligence nominee Jay Clayton. Moreover, the President said he would withhold Clayton’s nomination from “going forward until Jamie McDonald is approved to be U.S. Attorney.”
If confirmed, Clayton would vacate his post as U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York. That’s the slot for which the President is nominating McDonald.
TRUMP SAYS SENATE HEARING ON DNI NOMINEE IS CANCELED UNTIL US ATTORNEY REPLACEMENT CONFIRMED
Jay Clayton, U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, speaks next to Jessica S. Tisch, New York Police Department commissioner, during a press conference at NYPD headquarters following the arrest of suspects charged with igniting IEDs near Gracie Mansion, the home of New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, in New York City on March 9, 2026. (REUTERS/Brendan McDermid)
So what would happen with the hearing?
Lawmakers and aides scrambled as they woke to the news Wednesday morning. After all, Trump is the president. He doesn’t have the authority to cancel a Senate hearing.
“Yeah. I don’t think that’s his call,” said Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., a member of the Intelligence Committee.
One senior source told Fox News they presumed that Clayton’s confirmation hearing would forge ahead. Another told Fox the fate of the hearing was “undetermined.”
On one hand, lawmakers and aides had to first digest what was happening. Was the President withdrawing Clayton’s nomination? Was he saying he just wasn’t allowing Clayton to testify? Did the head of the executive branch really believe he could bigfoot a congressional hearing? Or was this the president flexing his political muscle, testing Senate Republicans to see how compliant they might be with his intimation — and potentially cancel the hearing on their own?
So was Clayton’s hearing on or off?
“Are we going to have an Intelligence Committee confirmation hearing today?” yours truly asked panel Chairman Tom Cotton, R-Ark., as he slid behind a backdoor to a hearing in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Silence from Cotton.
SCOOP: TOP GOP SEN. COTTON TO MEET WITH EMBATTLED TRUMP DEFENSE NOMINEE AS DOUBTS SWIRL
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., arrives for a vote in the U.S. Capitol on April 30, 2025, stating the war with Iran will continue for weeks as the U.S. limits their offensive capabilities. (Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)
“Do you know the answer?” I followed up.
“Do you think the President overstepped his bounds, saying he was canceling the hearing?” I continued.
By that point, Cotton was well behind the doorway and it closed.
“I have never seen anything quite like this,” said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., one of the longest-serving members on the Intelligence Committee in Senate history. “Everybody else is going to have to keep guessing for a while.”
It was Washington whiplash.
“Things change around here pretty quick, Chad,” quipped Sen. John Hoeven, R-N.D.
But a bit later, Cotton finally weighed-in when he posted on X that the hearing would proceed. The Arkansas Republican then materialized again in the hallway, heading for an elevator bank.
“To be clear, you will proceed with the hearing and you expect Jay Clayton to be there despite what the President said?” I asked.
A steel-faced Cotton stared straight ahead at the green elevator door.
“Chad, you have our statement,” said a terse Cotton.
But an hour later, Cotton ditched the hearing after the President blocked Clayton from testifying.
“It’s regrettable that the President has directed Jay Clayton not to appear at his confirmation hearing today,” said Cotton in a new statement on X. “While today’s hearing is now unfortunately postponed, I look forward to proceeding with his confirmation in the near future.”
The stunning reversal left everyone trying to grasp what happened. And what might be next.
SPRINT TO CONFIRM TRUMP NOMINEES KICKS OFF IN JANUARY
U.S. President Donald Trump attends a morning work meeting to “revive balanced, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth for the benefit of all” in the presence of the G7 countries, partner countries, the International Monetary Fund, and the OECD, as part of the G7 summit, in Evian, eastern France, on June 17, 2026. (Ludovic MARIN / AFP via Getty Images)
“I am not sure whether Jay Clayton has simply been postponed or withdrawn,” mused Sen. Mark Warner, D-Va., the Vice Chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “I wonder whether Jay Clayton knows whether he has been postponed or withdrawn.”
Democrats and Republicans brokered a fragile agreement weeks ago to renew FISA Section 702. The intelligence community argues that program is the powerful tool in the American arsenal to track and combat potential terrorism. Congress repeatedly punted a full renewal for months.
But with both bodies on the precipice of reauthorizing the program, President Trump announced he would install housing czar Bill Pulte as interim DNI. Democrats balked at Pulte, noting he had no intelligence experience. Plus, they viewed him as a political hack who would run roughshod over America’s intelligence apparatus.
So Democrats pulled their support from the FISA compromise.
Most Republicans weren’t exactly enamored with Pulte, either. And those worried about the nation’s security pushed to block Pulte from entering the DNI’s office. That’s why Cotton scheduled Clayton’s confirmation hearing so quickly. It was thought that the Senate might be able to pivot after the hearing and confirm Clayton on the floor late this week or early next.
Rapid confirmation of Clayton was essential. Such a scenario would unlock Democrats’ votes to reauthorize FISA Section 702 after the program’s congressional blessing expired a week ago.
That was the plan. At least until the president initiated the firestorm over Clayton’s confirmation hearing this week.
“Another Trump victory gets upended by an impulse,” vented Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D. “It’s frustrating.”
WHY TRUMP PICKED BILL PULTE TO LEAD US INTELLIGENCE AS CRITICS QUESTION HIS QUALIFICATIONS
Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., spoke to reporters at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C., on April 1, 2025, before the weekly Republican Senate policy luncheon. (Kayla Bartkowski/Getty Images)
But wait. There’s more.
President Trump inserted another chestnut — or hot potato — into his pre-dawn Truth Social screed. Especially if you thought the president was going to make it easy for Congress to hastily re-up FISA as soon as the Senate confirmed Clayton.
“To add a slight bit of intrigue but, for the Good of the Nation, and the People of our Country, I will not approve FISA without THE SAVE AMERICA ACT going along with it,” Trump said.
He added that his plan was for Pulte to “remain as the Acting Director of National Intelligence” and declared that “Republicans fell into a trap.”
The SAVE America Act is the touchstone of President Trump’s 2026 legislative agenda. It requires proof of citizenship to vote. However, the bill has never garnered even 50 yeas in the Senate on two previous test votes.
“We’ve got to pass the SAVE America Act and conditioning passage of FISA on the prior passage of SAVE America would be a great thing,” said Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah.
Other Senate Republicans were more realistic, based on the legislative history of the SAVE America Act.
“You can’t always get what you want,” said Sen. John Kennedy, R-La. “I mean, I want a Porsche for my birthday. I’m not going to get it.”
TRUMP, THUNE CLASH ON VOTER ID ULTIMATUM AS GOP REMAINS DIVIDED ON PATH FORWARD
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., said a classified briefing reinforced his view that Iran’s leaders would use a nuclear weapon if they obtained one during a Senate Judiciary subcommittee hearing in Washington, D.C. (Elizabeth Frantz / Reuters)
Democrats seethed about national security as Republicans squirmed.
“We had a path forward as of yesterday (on FISA) and today we don’t,” said Sen. Mark Kelly, D-Ariz. “This has become a complete debacle and now it’s up to the White House to figure out a path forward here.”
CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP
No one knows what’s next for Clayton. Or McDonald. Or FISA. And there’s high skepticism anything happens on the SAVE America Act. So it’s all in a cryogenic Congressional freeze.
Regardless, Clayton’s confirmation hearing never happened. Such hearings are the responsibility of the legislative branch. But by the end of the day, there was no question who canceled it.
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court ruled for gun rights and against drug laws on Thursday, striking down part of a federal law that made it a crime for an “unlawful user” of an illegal drug like marijuana to own firearms.
All nine justices agreed the law was too broad and overly harsh.
They left open the possibility that “addicts” and “unusually dangerous” people who were impaired by drugs could be denied guns.
The Trump administration had urged the court to uphold the prosecution of Ali Hemani, a Texas man who was investigated for alleged terrorist ties and admitted to being a regular user of marijuana.
Since 1968, federal law has prohibited gun possession by felons, fugitives and any other person who is “an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance.”
In defense of the law, Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer argued that “habitual” drug users were akin to “habitual drunkards” in early American history, and could therefore be denied the gun rights protected by the 2nd Amendment.
But that historical argument fell flat, including with the court’s conservatives.
Justice Neil M. Gorsuch is a skeptic of laws that give prosecutors broad and unchecked power.
“The law automatically bans an individual from possessing a gun from the moment he becomes an unlawful user of any controlled substance until he ceases being one,” he wrote in U.S. vs. Hemani. “It doesn’t matter what controlled substance an individual uses, in what amounts he does so, or whether his drug use has ever made him a danger to himself or others.”
The government’s view “suggests that the millions of Americans who now regularly use marijuana are categorically and unusually dangerous.”
And a conviction can lead to a 15-year prison term, he added.
The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the ruling.
“The court has sent a strong message that the government cannot criminalize the conduct of large numbers of people by making categorical and unfounded assumptions about whether they are dangerous,” said Cecillia Wang, legal director at the ACLU. “With nearly half of Americans reporting marijuana use at some point in their lives, this ruling protects the rights of millions and curbs the government’s ability to impose arbitrary and discriminatory penalties.”
Some defenders of gun regulation opposed the ruling.
“We disagree with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Hemani,” said Janet Carter, managing director of 2nd Amendment litigation at Everytown Law. “That said, the court has stressed that its decision is limited — rightly recognizing that drugs and guns can make for a dangerous mix, and leaving open the possibility of prosecuting someone with proof that their drug use renders their gun possession dangerous to themselves or others.”
Two years ago, Hunter Biden, the president’s son, was charged and convicted under the gun law for making a false statement when he applied for a gun permit. He denied being a drug user at a time when prosecutors said he was addicted to crack cocaine.
Then-President Biden gave him a full pardon in December 2024.
Hemani was investigated by the FBI for suspected ties to terrorists but was not charged with such a crime.
In 2020, he and his parents “traveled to Iran to participate in a celebration of the life of Qasem [Suleimani], an Iranian general and terrorist who had been killed by an American drone strike the month before,” the administration told the court last year.
The FBI obtained a warrant to search Hemani’s family home. Agents found a Glock 9-millimeter pistol, 60 grams of marijuana and 4.7 grams of cocaine.
When questioned, Hemani said he used marijuana about every other day.
A federal grand jury in Texas charged him with possessing a firearm as an unlawful habitual user of marijuana.
But the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled this restriction on guns violated the 2nd Amendment. It said that “there is no historical justification for disarming a sober citizen not presently under an impairing influence.”
Appealing to the Supreme Court, the Trump administration urged the justices to uphold the law.
“Habitual illegal drug users with firearms present unique dangers to society — especially because they pose a grave risk of armed, hostile encounters with police officers while impaired,” the solicitor general said.
But the justices affirmed the 5th Circuit’s decision.
Still pending before the court is a 2nd Amendment challenge to new laws in Hawaii and California that would prohibit carrying guns into private businesses unless the owner or manager had given their express approval.
Gun rights advocates said such laws, if enforced, are intended to deny their rights to carry concealed weapons when they leave home. The case is Wolford vs. Lopez.
The justices will issue decisions next week on Tuesday and Thursday.
-
Wyoming4 minutes agoGordon hosts panel on New World screwworm; no outbreaks in Wyoming
-
Crypto6 minutes agoBest Crypto Recovery Law Firms in 2026: Leading Cryptocurrency Lawyers for Asset Recovery, Fraud Investigations and Digital Asset Disputes
-
Finance12 minutes agoHomegrown Music Festival looks to right finances, hire new leadership
-
Fitness19 minutes agoWhy this unexpected exercise is most effective for building arm muscle in your 50s – and how to do it properly
-
Movie Reviews27 minutes agoThe Beautifully Handcrafted Rose of Nevada Is a Ghost Story Like No Other
-
World37 minutes agoOn the South Lawn, a UFC fighter’s victory frames an unusual White House scene
-
Politics49 minutes agoVideo: Demining the Strait of Hormuz
-
Health1 hour agoVideo: Wii Bowling Takes Over Tulsa Retirement Homes
