Washington, D.C. – A veteran federal judge has issued a strong ruling against the Trump administration, ordering the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to comply with a 2022 law mandating public disclosure of the government’s spending decisions.
Senior U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan expressed frustration with the administration’s attempt to remove the Public Apportionment Database, a tool designed to make the executive branch’s spending decisions transparent.
The Disputed Database and the Case Background
In 2022, Congress passed legislation requiring the executive branch to publish apportionment decisions—the distribution of federal funds—within two days of a decision on a publicly accessible database.
This measure was introduced following concerns about the Trump administration’s handling of congressional appropriations, particularly in relation to the Ukraine impeachment.
In that case, President Trump was accused of withholding military aid from Ukraine unless Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky announced investigations into Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.
After the 2022 law was passed, the Public Apportionment Database was created and used to provide transparency regarding how the executive branch distributed taxpayer money. However, the database was suddenly taken offline in March 2023 under the Trump administration, citing the argument that the law was an unconstitutional infringement on executive authority.
Judge Sullivan’s Ruling
On Monday, Judge Sullivan ruled in favor of the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Protect Democracy Project, two watchdog organizations that filed a lawsuit against the government.
The plaintiffs argued that the OMB’s removal of the database violated the Administrative Procedure Act, which mandates that government actions must be based on reasoned decision-making and transparent processes.
Judge Sullivan’s ruling was strong and direct, stating that the removal of the database and the failure to disclose how the government was spending funds violated both the 2022 law and the 2023 continuing disclosure requirements.
He criticized the Trump administration’s argument that the law infringed on executive decision-making, calling it an “extravagant and unsupported theory of presidential power.”
Sullivan emphasized that Congress has the authority to demand public disclosure of how the executive branch spends taxpayer dollars, stating, “Nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money.” He concluded with an exclamation point, ordering the government to “stop violating the law!”
Potential Appeal and Legal Implications
The Trump administration is expected to appeal the ruling to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, as it has done in previous cases involving adverse rulings.
Sullivan’s decision allows the government time to file an appeal by placing an administrative stay on his ruling until July 24, 2025, giving the government a few days to contest the decision.
In the meantime, advocates for public transparency have praised the decision.
Public Citizen attorney Adina Rosenbaum emphasized that the law is clear: the federal government must make appropriations decisions public. CREW’s Nikhel Sus called the ruling “thorough and well-reasoned,” stressing that the public has a right to know how taxpayer funds are being used, ensuring accountability for the executive branch’s spending decisions.
Why This Case Matters
The case underscores the ongoing tension between executive power and congressional authority, particularly when it comes to financial transparency and accountability.
The Public Apportionment Database was designed to prevent any future abuse of congressional appropriations, ensuring that taxpayers can see how their money is being spent.
As this case continues, the outcome of the appeal could set a precedent for future legal battles surrounding the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress.
