A federal appeals court has rejected a bid by the Trump administration to keep a public database of federal spending under wraps, ruling that the move defied Congress‘ constitutional authority over government appropriations.
In a unanimous order issued on Saturday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit gave the administration until August 15 to restore the database. The panel upheld an earlier district court decision that the data must remain publicly accessible while litigation over the dispute proceeds.
Why It Matters
The D.C. Circuit’s decision reaffirms Congress’ exclusive constitutional authority over federal spending and its power to require public disclosure of how funds are allocated.
By ordering the Trump administration to restore a congressionally mandated database of apportionment records, the court underscored that only Congress—not the president—can decide whether such information remains public. The panel warned that allowing the executive branch to conceal these records would undermine congressional oversight, weaken the separation of powers and hinder enforcement of laws such as the Impoundment Control Act, which bars presidents from withholding or delaying funds that Congress has approved.
ALLISON ROBBERT/POOL/AFP via Getty Images
What To Know
The case stems from the administration’s decision in March to shut down the long-running public database, which details federal spending and contract information.
The Trump administration argued that the disclosure of certain data could interfere with the president’s ability to manage federal funds and could expose sensitive information.
The ruling also places the dispute in a long historical context, tracing the principle of legislative control over public money from 17th-century England through the debates of America’s Founders. The court cited figures such as James Madison, George Mason and Thomas Jefferson, who viewed public access to government financial records as a safeguard against executive overreach and a cornerstone of democratic accountability.
By linking modern transparency requirements to these centuries-old ideals, the decision frames the case as more than a fight over a single database: It is a test of whether the executive can limit Congress’ ability to oversee and publicize the use of taxpayer funds.
Two members of the appeals court panel—Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, and Judge Robert Wilkins, appointed by President Barack Obama—issued a 25-page opinion rejecting the administration’s rationale. Henderson wrote that the administration’s effort “was an affront to Congress’ authority over government spending” and posed a threat to the separation of powers.
She added that Congress’ authority is “at its zenith” when both approving expenditures and requiring details of that spending to be disclosed. She wrote, “Only Congress—not the administration—could decide to shut down the database.”
Executive Overreach
The administration’s move came as it faced a series of lawsuits alleging that it was preparing to unlawfully “impound” congressionally mandated funds by withholding or delaying their disbursement. The government contended that the database could disclose information that should not be public, while critics argued that it was an essential transparency tool for monitoring compliance with congressional spending directives.
U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan, appointed by President Bill Clinton, ruled last month in favor of plaintiffs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and Protect Democracy, ordering the data restored. Sullivan rejected the administration’s claims that public access threatened executive functions, saying the data’s availability was essential to Congress’ oversight powers.
The Justice Department obtained a temporary stay of Sullivan’s order pending appeal, but Saturday’s ruling lifted that pause.
The third judge on the appeals panel, Bradley Garcia, appointed by President Joe Biden, agreed with the outcome but did not join Henderson’s opinion.
Lawmakers from both parties have expressed concern about recent administration actions terminating federal grants and contracts worth billions of dollars that Congress had already approved. The Justice Department has maintained that such funds could still be obligated within statutory deadlines, but some legislators have warned that the approach could undermine congressional intent.
What People Are Saying
Judge Karen Henderson wrote: “No court would allow a losing party to defy its judgment. No President would allow a usurper to command our armed forces. And no Congress should be made to wait while the Executive intrudes on its plenary power over appropriations.”
Becky Pringle, the president of the National Education Association, told The Washington Post in July: “It is outrageous that this Trump administration is taking away money that was already promised to our kids and to our schools—that schools already made plans for.”
Representative Robert C. Scott, a Democrat from Virginia, said in a statement on July 1: “This Administration’s plan to deny states resources previously allocated to them and refusal to distribute the funds as allocated by Congress violates the law.”
What Happens Next
The panel’s order reinforces that decisions to curtail access to congressionally mandated spending information rest with Congress—not the executive branch.
Still, Saturday’s ruling does not resolve the broader legal question of whether the administration is ultimately required to make the spending data public. That issue continues to be litigated. However, unless the full appeals court or the Supreme Court intervenes with a delay, the administration must restore the spending database by August 15.