OMB must make appropriations website public again, judge rules

The Office of Budget and Management must restore a website that lists funds appropriated by Congress, a judge ruled Monday.

The decision, issued by U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, is a win for the nonprofit organization Protect Democracy Project and watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), which filed lawsuits against the OMB in April following the agency’s controversial takedown of the appropriations page. 

The two groups argued the OMB’s takedown of the page was a violation of a 2022 congressional mandate requiring spending decisions to be published online for the public. 

The statute, which was signed by former President Joe Biden in 2022, requires the executive branch to publish apportionment decisions on a public, online database within two days of the decision. 

The mandate prompted the creation of the “Public Apportionments Database,” which the OMB regularly updated until late March 2025, when it suddenly took the database offline. 

“Congress mandated transparency for apportionments to prevent abuses and strengthen oversight of the spending process by both Congress and the public,” the Protect Democracy Project wrote in its complaint. “Without this transparency, the president and OMB Director may abuse their authority over the apportionment of federal funds without public or congressional scrutiny or accountability.”

Sullivan agreed with parts of the project’s argument, writing in a 60-page summary judgment that “the law is clear.” 

“Congress has sweeping authority to require public disclosure of how the Executive Branch is apportioning the funds appropriated by Congress,” Sullivan wrote, adding later that “there is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money.” 

OMB Director Russell Vought defended the move in a March letter to Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., writing the agency could no longer operate and maintain the system as it discloses “sensitive, predictive, and deliberative information.” 

Vought said that as information changes, “such disclosures have a chilling effect on deliberations within the executive branch.” 

OMB in court filings further argued their apportionment decisions cannot be disclosed “because they are not final decisions about how to administer the spending of public funds,” Sullivan wrote. 

Sullivan said OMB’s argument is “relying on an extravagant and unsupported theory of presidential power.” 

OMB did not immediately respond to FedScoop’s request for comments. 

It comes nearly two months after the Government Accountability Office informed the White House that the takedown was a violation of statutory requirements. 

The GAO pushed back against Vought’s argument, writing in a letter to the White House that apportionments are legally binding decisions and “such information, by definition, cannot be predecisional or deliberative.”