WASHINGTON (AP) — Top Democrats on the House Judiciary and House Oversight committees have filed a lengthy Freedom of Information Act request questioning whether the Trump administration’s DOGE Service is operating “outside the bounds of federal law,” The Associated Press has learned.
Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland and Rep. Gerald Connolly of Virginia are seeking detailed information about the authority of the Department of Government Efficiency Service, including billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk and some 40 other people, to carry out firings of federal workers and dismantling of federal agencies.
They also are requesting detailed information about DOGE's access to sensitive data, its use of artificial intelligence, the resumes and training of its staff and its communications related to Musk-held entities including SpaceX, Starlink and Tesla.
“The Administration and Mr. Musk have hidden behind a veil of secrecy as they systematically dismantle the federal government of the United States," the Democrats wrote in a letter to DOGE administrator Amy Gleason accompanying the FOIA request, which was obtained by the AP. "The American people deserve answers, and we are committed to using every tool at our disposal to expose the truth about DOGE’s operations."
They are seeking expedited review of the request, with a response within 20 days.
The FOIA request is the latest in an escalating confrontation between Congress and the executive branch as President Donald Trump is rapidly slashing routine aspects of the federal government by doing away with thousands of workers and unwinding various longstanding agencies and services.
The Oversight Committee Democrats have already issued a formal request for information from the Republican president's administration on Musk's potential conflicts of interest, which is pending. Their attempt to subpoena Musk was rejected by committee Republicans, who hold the majority in Congress.
While generally anyone can file a FOIA request, the Democrats on the panels are utilizing the avenues at their disposal as the minority party to press for oversight of the Republican administration any way they can. It's also a potential step toward more binding measures, including legal action.
In the FOIA request, Raskin and Connolly, who are the ranking Democrats on the committees, wrote that the information is necessary “to provide answers to the many open questions and an explanation to the public."
They said, “There exist possible questions concerning the government’s integrity regarding DOGE’s operations, formation, and activity, which form the basis of this request, as many of DOGE’s actions may be outside the bounds of federal law."
It’s unclear if the Trump administration will respond.
Trump and Musk have shown little regard for the protests coming from Democrats — and some Republicans — in Congress as their teams march across the federal government. Musk has vowed transparency, but the Democrats noted he has met privately with House and Senate Republicans.
The Trump administration is purging employees, shuttering federal agencies and otherwise disrupting operations in the name of rooting out waste, fraud and abuse. Some 100 lawsuits have been filed, with judges slowing and stopping some actions, while allowing others.
In the sweeping request, the Democrats seek four main types of information about the authority involved with DOGE’s activity: its access to sensitive data; the guidance and decision-making around its firings of federal employees; the potential conflicts of interest around its leadership; and its internal communications.
They seek the names, job titles and qualifications of DOGE staffers who have “been granted access to personally identifiable or sensitive information" since inauguration day, Jan. 20, and their purpose for doing so.
Additionally, they want to know about the various computer programs, including but “not limited to, artificial intelligence (AI) and large language models (LLMs), your agency is using to store, process or analyze personally identifiable or sensitive information or data."
The request seeks all DOGE directives, guidance and analyses around the firing of federal workers, including the dismissal of inspectors general, and the undoing of various government agencies, including the U.S. Agency for International Development, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the Department of Education and others.
Democrats are also requesting information about DOGE's authority to direct and execute these directives as well as details around the funding of DOGE operations.
Musk, DOGE administrator Gleason and some 40 other employees are listed in the FOIA request, which seeks information about their resumes, salaries, any conflict of interest waivers and any non-disclosure agreements involving their employment.
The request also seeks all communication from those workers, including via text message and various messaging platforms.
House Committee on the Judiciary Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., speaks during a news conference at the Department of Justice, Friday, March 14, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Rod Lamkey, Jr.)
COLUMBUS, Ohio (AP) — A federal appeals court in Cincinnati will hear arguments Wednesday in a legal dispute that pits a suburban Ohio school district’s gender pronoun policy against the free speech rights of classmates who believe there are only two genders.
The lawsuit brought by Parents Defending Education, a national membership organization, against the Olentangy Local School District in 2023 has captured broad national attention from groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Manhattan Institute. Ohio's solicitor general has asked to participate in oral arguments on behalf of 22 U.S. states that have interests in the case.
A lower court rejected the group’s arguments that the policies violated students’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and a three-judge panel of the 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati affirmed that decision in July.
The full court will reconsider that decision in a rare en banc hearing Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:
The lawsuit takes issue with overlapping district policies that prohibit the use of gender-related language that other students might deem insulting, dehumanizing, unwanted or offensive and call for the use of peers' “preferred pronouns.”
The district's electronic devices policy — which applies both on and off school time — prohibits transmitting “disruptive” material or material that could be seen as harassing or disparaging other students based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, among other categories.
A separate antidiscrimination policy prohibits students from engaging in “discriminatory language” during times when they're under the school's authority. That is defined as “verbal or written comments, jokes, and slurs that are derogatory towards an individual or group based on one or more of the following characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and transgender identity), disability, age, religion, ancestry, or genetic information.”
The district's code of conduct echoes many of the same themes a third time.
Parents Defending Education, founded in 2021 amid the culture wars over schools’ teachings on race, diversity and sexuality, argues that the policies compel students and parents who belong to their group to “affirm an idea that gender is fluid” in contradiction of their religious beliefs.
“These students have views that the District disfavors,” the group wrote in a court filing. “Specifically, they believe that people are either male or female, that biological sex is immutable, and that sex does not change based on someone’s internal feelings. Accordingly, they ‘d(o) not want to be forced to ‘affirm’ that a biologically female classmate is actually a male — or vice versa — or that a classmate is ’nonbinary' and neither male nor female.”
The group argues that the policies unconstitutionally compel “viewpoint-based” speech by forcing students who believe in only two genders to use pronouns that suggest otherwise. They say that violates the First Amendment's guarantees to free speech and similar protections contained in the 14th Amendment, particularly since students are subject to punishment for violating the policies.
Parents Defending Education further challenges the electronic devices policy for applying outside school hours and off school property. The ACLU has sided with the parents' group on this point, arguing the district's policies are overbroad.
Olentangy Local School District outside Columbus, one of the state's largest districts, maintains the policies protect students against abuse and harassment and asserts that Parents Defending Education represents “Christian, cisgender” students "seeking dispensation under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to harass other students based on their gender identity.”
“They are not illegal immigrants subject to deportation. They are not gay soldiers under Don't Ask Don't Tell. They're not African-Americans in the Jim Crow south. They've not been systematically oppressed," the district's lawyers told the lower court in a written filing. "They're members of the majority who want to — under the guise of the First Amendment — openly voice their opposition to an historically maligned minority group, transgendered people.”
Olentangy argues that Parents Defending Education has failed to provide evidence of injury — as the lawsuit was filed before disciplinary action had been brought against any student. The district also says that its policies leave open other options for students who don't wish to use someone's pronouns. That includes calling the person by their first name, using a gender-neutral pronoun or simply not referring to them at all.
The availability of such options, an argument against the policies unconstitutionally compelling students to say certain things, played a role in the three-judge panel's 2-1 ruling in favor of the district last summer.
The story has been updated to correct that Parents Defending Education is nonsectarian membership group, not Christian.
FILE - Protesters advocating for transgender rights and healthcare stand outside of the Ohio Statehouse on Wednesday, Jan. 24, 2024, in Columbus, Ohio. (AP Photo/Patrick Orsagos, File)
