The Trump administration is requesting the Supreme Court to intervene and prevent regulatory agencies from investigating the government efficiency department formerly led by Tesla, Inc. (TSLA.US) CEO Musk.

The legal dispute between the US government and regulatory organizations regarding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) continues to escalate. The Trump administration recently requested the Supreme Court to intervene to block a watchdog organization from questioning senior officials and obtaining internal documents related to the project. It is reported that the US Department of Justice filed an application to the Supreme Court on March 18, asking to stop the non-profit organization Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) from continuing its investigation. The organization is trying to obtain information about the DOGE project, which was previously led by Tesla, Inc. CEO Elon Musk, with the aim of significantly reducing federal spending and cutting thousands of government employees. This dispute has been ongoing for a while. The Supreme Court had supported the Trump administration in the same case last year, temporarily halting CREW's investigation. However, the case was later remanded to the federal appeals court for further review. After CREW narrowed the scope of its investigation, the appeals court allowed them to continue collecting documents and testimony. CREW is requesting disclosure of government records related to DOGE based on the Freedom of Information Act, but the Trump administration argues that DOGE is not considered a "federal agency" as defined by the law and is therefore not bound by it. While the core issue of the case has not yet been decided, a federal judge in Washington had previously allowed CREW to gather evidence on the operation of DOGE, including requiring the head of the department, Amy Gleason, to testify under oath. The government has been opposing this for several months. In the latest filing, the US Department of Justice stated that the lower court's approach "intrudes on the autonomy and confidentiality of presidential advisors" and could lead to "time-consuming and burdensome discovery litigation." As of now, CREW has not responded to the latest developments.