Voz media US Voz.us

Judge rules government's removal of crowdfunding tracker illegal

The website went offline earlier this year after the Trump administration said it could no longer operate the system, arguing it contained sensitive information that could pose a threat to national security.

File image of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.

File image of the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C.AFP.

Diane Hernández
Published by

A federal judge ruled Monday that the Trump administration violated the law by removing a public website that showed how funds are allocated to federal agencies. He also ordered its immediate reinstatement.

Emmet Sullivan, a district judge in Columbia, said the removal of the online database overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) violated legislation passed by Congress, which requires OMB to make public its budget allocation decisions within two business days.

"There is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the executive branch to inform the public about how it distributes public money. Therefore, the defendants must stop violating the law," Sullivan wrote in a 60-page document.

Although the judge ordered the government to reinstate the database, following a request from the Justice Department, he stayed his order until Thursday morning so the administration can decide whether it will appeal the ruling.

An automated tracking system

Regarding the funding distribution process, agencies have limited authority to spend congressionally appropriated funds in installments.

As part of a legislative funding agreement enacted in 2022, Congress required OMB to implement an automated system to publish each document allocating a budget appropriation. It further directed the office to operate and maintain the automated system for FY2023 and each fiscal year thereafter in another funding bill that was also enacted that same year.

The website in question, stopped operating earlier this year after the government declared that it could no longer operate the system, arguing that it contained sensitive information that could pose a threat to national security. The administration also argued in court that the requirement to release the information is unconstitutional.

Sullivan, an appointee of former President Clinton, rejected the argument. He went on to assert that the administration was in violation of the two funding agreements and the Paperwork Reduction Act's requirement to timely disseminate public information.

tracking