A judge declares that OMB violated the law by removing a public spending database and calls for its complete restoration and transparency.

A federal district court on Monday ordered the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to restore a publicly accessible online database providing information on federal spending apportionments. The court found that the agency had violated the law when it removed the site in March 2025.

U.S. District Judge Emmet G. Sullivan's ruling supported the argument made by two watchdog organizations, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and the Protect Democracy Project, that OMB's conduct was illegal under federal law.

OMB created the Public Apportionments Database in 2022 in response to instructions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 and 2023, and this was the main source of the controversy. These statutes require the Executive Branch to publish its apportionment decisions, which decide how funds authorized by Congress are allocated, on a publicly accessible website within two days of the decision. According to the legislative history, the goal was to improve congressional oversight and communicate government spending to the public.

In late March 2025, OMB abruptly shut down the database, arguing that the public transparency rule infringed on the Executive Branch's constitutional right to make decisions. OMB Director Russell Vought said that apportionment decisions, in addition to stifling internal debates, involve sensitive, predecisional, and deliberative information that could compromise foreign policy and national security.

Judge Sullivan rejected OMB's arguments, preserving Congress' authority to mandate that the public be informed about the Executive Branch's financial expenditures. The court determined that, in contrast to OMB's assertions, apportionment documents are final, legally binding decisions. Noting that the Biden Administration had complied without any problems for over three years, it rejected OMB's claim that disclosure compromised the Executive's position.

Protect Democracy and CREW both claimed they experienced informational harm as a result of a dearth of vital data for tracking government operations. The court concurred, concluding that their information usage was consistent with Congress's objective of transparency.

Both groups received partial summary judgment in the decision, which ruled that OMB's actions were illegal and ordered the Public Apportionments Database to be restored. A permanent injunction against future transgressions of the rules was also issued.