Judge Orders Restoration of Federal Spending Database Shut Down by Trump Administration

A federal judge in the United States has ruled that a government website showing how federal funds are distributed must be restored after it was taken down by the Trump administration. The court found that removing the site violated a law requiring public access to this information.

In the ruling, the judge stated that it is fully within Congress’s power to require the public to be informed about how taxpayer money is being used. He ordered the immediate reinstatement of the online database, which is managed by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). However, a short delay was granted to allow time for the Justice Department to seek emergency intervention from a higher court.

The issue began after a bipartisan law passed in 2022 required the OMB to publish apportionment documents, essentially showing how funding is allocated across federal agencies within two business days of their creation. The site was intended to promote transparency for the 2023 fiscal year and beyond.

Earlier this year, the administration took the platform offline, citing concerns that it could expose sensitive information. They also argued that the requirement to publish the data was unconstitutional. The judge disagreed, stating that the administration’s actions violated both federal funding laws and rules governing public records.

The lawsuit was brought by two government watchdog groups, who argued that taking down the site denied the public access to critical spending data. In his opinion, the judge emphasized that these organizations and the public have a legal right to this information, which they rely on to hold the government accountable.

Legal advocates say the ruling reinforces that the executive branch cannot ignore laws it disagrees with. Lawmakers from both parties have also pushed for the site’s reinstatement, pointing out that transparency in government spending is not optional.

The Office of Management and Budget and the Department of Justice have not yet responded to the court’s decision.