In the Press

But the lawsuit, filed on behalf of the non-profit group Protect Democracy in US district court in Washington DC, says that federal law requires the OMB to publicly post apportionment documents.

“Congress mandated prompt transparency for apportionments to prevent abuses of power and strengthen Congress’s and the public’s oversight of the spending process,” the suit says. “Absent this transparency, the president and OMB may abuse their authority over the apportionment of federal funds without public or congressional scrutiny or accountability.”

A nonprofit organization filed suit against the Trump administration on Monday, alleging its decision to stop posting budget documents in late March violates federal law.

Protect Democracy Project’s case is the second lawsuit challenging the Office of Management and Budget’s choice to pull down a webpage with apportionment information that detailed when and how the administration was spending money appropriated by Congress.

The lawsuit, brought by nonprofit Protect Democracy Project, names OMB and its director, Russell Vought, as defendants.

The group argued Monday that the apportionment disclosures provide “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.”

“They are targeting private institutions of education and attempting to police and control speech, political expression and thought. And that is truly unprecedented,” said Orion Danjuma, counsel at Protect Democracy, which is representing the unions alongside the law firm Altshuler Berzon. “Columbia is the testing ground for this. It’s a canary in the coal mine.”

“Any decision to overrule Humphreys could destabilize financial markets, shake investor confidence, lead to reckless monetary policy dictated more by political considerations than economic expertise,” said Amrit Agarwal, special counsel for Protect Democracy, a cross-partisan organization that is representing the commissioners. “In particular, it could endanger the Federal Reserve, which is an incredibly important institution for the American economy.”

The orders have produced an outcry within the legal profession. By Saturday, about 1,700 former Justice Department employees signed a statement organized by Protect Democracy, a nonpartisan nonprofit, voicing their opposition.

The case is being argued by lawyers from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the Protect Democracy Project, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. Charlton and the other plaintiffs—including researchers at the University of Michigan, University of New Mexico, and the American Public Health Association, which represents more than 20,000 public health professionals—are asking the court to declare the grant cancellations unconstitutional, force the NIH to restore terminated awards, and prevent the agency from canceling more awards in the future.

“By firing the commissioners, the President is engaging in an illegal attempt to strip Congress of its power. If accepted, any future President, whether Republican or Democrat, could wield these powers to punish enemies and reward friends,” Jared Davidson, counsel at Protect Democracy, told Gizmodo. “The consequences are not abstract. They are not theoretical.”

“The president’s attempt to terminate commissioners Bedoya and Slaughter is contrary to federal law and nearly a century of supreme court precedent,” said Amit Agarwal, special counsel for Protect Democracy, which is representing Slaughter and Bedoya in the lawsuit. “This isn’t about Democrats versus Republicans or liberals versus conservatives – it’s about an economy governed by laws rather than political whims.”