Trump Team Faces Lawsuit Over Vanishing Spending Website

President Trump’s administration finds itself embroiled in a legal battle after removing a federal spending tracking website that watchdog groups claim was legally mandated to remain publicly accessible.

Key Takeaways

Multiple watchdog groups including CREW and Public Citizen Litigation Group have filed lawsuits against the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) for removing a federal spending transparency website
The website, which had been operational since July 2022, tracked how OMB directs agencies to spend taxpayer money and was required by law under the Consolidated Appropriations Acts
OMB Director Russell Vought argues the system contained sensitive and deliberative information, while the Government Accountability Office counters that apportionments are legally binding documents
The lawsuits claim the removal violates congressional mandates specifically designed to prevent abuse of power in federal spending
Critics view the website’s removal as an attempt to avoid transparency and proper oversight of government expenditures

Legal Challenge Mounted Against OMB

Multiple watchdog organizations have taken legal action against the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and its Director Russell Vought following the abrupt removal of a federal spending transparency website. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Public Citizen Litigation Group, and the Protect Democracy Project filed lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The legal complaints specifically target the administration’s decision to take down a website that provided public access to information about how federal funding is distributed to government agencies.

The website in question had been operational since July 2022 and contained what’s known as “apportionment” data – documents showing how OMB directs agencies to spend congressionally allocated funds. According to the lawsuits, the removal occurred approximately two weeks before legal action was initiated, with no public explanation provided. OMB is legally required to maintain this public information under the Consolidated Appropriations Acts of 2022 and 2023, legislation enacted during the previous administration.

Claims of Illegal Transparency Violations

Watchdog groups assert that the removal of the spending transparency website constitutes a clear violation of federal law. The lawsuits emphasize that Congress specifically mandated transparency in federal spending to prevent potential abuses of power and ensure proper oversight of the spending process. Without access to this information, the public and Congress lose visibility into how taxpayer dollars are being allocated and spent, potentially undermining accountability mechanisms.

“The Trump administration’s removal of information showing its apportionment of federal funds is blatantly illegal,” said Wendy Liu.

The complainants highlight that the website was particularly valuable as “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.” The organizations are asking the court to order OMB to restore the website and resume public posting of apportionment information as required by law.

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’s Defense and GAO Response

In defending the website’s removal, OMB Director Russell Vought has argued that the system could not be maintained because it would require disclosure of sensitive, predecisional, and deliberative information. This position suggests the administration views the apportionment data as containing internal deliberations that should remain private. However, this reasoning has been directly challenged by the Government Accountability Office (GAO), which issued a formal response to the situation.

“We understand that OMB took down the website taking the position that it requires the disclosure of predecisional, and deliberative information,” the letter from the congressional watchdog stated. “We disagree.”

The GAO specifically refuted Vought’s claims, stating that apportionments are legally binding documents, not predecisional or deliberative materials. The congressional watchdog did acknowledge that while some apportionment information might indeed be sensitive, not all of the data meets that standard. The GAO’s position reinforces the argument that the statutory requirement for OMB to post apportionment data on a public website remains valid and enforceable.

Public Interest and Oversight Concerns

Critics of the website’s removal point to the importance of transparency in federal spending oversight. The Federal Antideficiency Act mandates that the president provide federal agencies with congressionally-appropriated funds in installments, a process that requires careful monitoring to ensure compliance with legislative intent. Deputy Chief Counsel of CREW, Nikhel Sus, characterized the website’s removal as “yet another attempt to dodge transparency and accountability,” referencing concerns about past uses of apportionment authority.

The lawsuits come amid broader public interest in government spending transparency. The complaint filed emphasizes that “Congress mandated prompt transparency for apportionments to prevent abuses of power and strengthen Congress’s and the public’s oversight of the spending process. 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 resolution of these legal challenges will likely set important precedents for government transparency requirements going forward.