In a stunning rebuke to the Trump administration, U.S. District Judge Emmet Sullivan has ruled that former President Donald Trump and his team broke federal law by abruptly shutting down a public website that tracked how federal funds are divided among government agencies.

The judge’s order not only demands the immediate reinstatement of the site but also delivers a powerful message: the executive branch cannot simply ignore the law when it finds Congressional mandates inconvenient.

The website in question, known as the Public Apportionments Database, was a vital tool for journalists, watchdog groups, and ordinary citizens.

It provided up-to-date information on how the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was distributing taxpayer money across federal agencies.

Its sudden removal earlier this year, under the direction of Trump’s OMB—then led by MAGA loyalist Russell Vought—sparked outrage and immediate legal challenges.

The Trump administration claimed national security concerns justified the site’s shutdown.

But watchdog organizations, including Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) and Protect Democracy, saw it differently. They argued the move was part of a broader MAGA agenda to gut government oversight and eliminate crucial public services, all under the guise of security.

Judge Sullivan’s ruling leaves no room for ambiguity. “There is nothing unconstitutional about Congress requiring the Executive Branch to inform the public of how it is apportioning the public’s money.

Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!” Sullivan wrote in his decision.

He cited explicit Congressional legislation that requires the OMB to “operate and maintain” the apportionment tracking system for “fiscal year 2023 and each fiscal year thereafter.”

The law further mandates that all apportionment decisions be made public within two business days—an obligation the Trump administration flagrantly ignored.

Sullivan was particularly critical of the administration’s attempt to unilaterally terminate the database: “When Defendants removed the Public Apportionments Database, they deprived CREW and Protect Democracy of information to which they are statutorily entitled, and which they relied on to monitor government funding, respond to possible legal violations, and provide transparency to the public.”

The lawsuit was spearheaded by CREW and Protect Democracy, two nonpartisan organizations dedicated to holding the government accountable. Their attorneys argued that shutting down the database not only violated the law but also crippled their ability to monitor federal spending and alert the public to potential abuses.

“Today’s decision makes clear that the executive branch cannot simply ignore appropriations laws they disagree with on policy grounds, no matter what President Trump or OMB Director Russell Vought thinks,” said Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel at Protect Democracy. “Congress passed a law making sure the American public could see how their taxpayer dollars are being spent, and we will continue to hold the administration accountable for making good on that promise.”

The ruling is being hailed as a major victory for transparency advocates, who have warned for years against the erosion of government openness under Trump’s leadership.

At its core, this case is about more than just a website. It’s about the fundamental principle that the government must answer to the people—and that the courts remain a crucial backstop against executive overreach.

The Trump administration’s move to eliminate the Public Apportionments Database was seen by critics as part of a pattern: gutting transparency, sidelining watchdogs, and shielding government operations from public scrutiny.

The justification of “national security” was widely dismissed as a smokescreen for evading accountability.

Judge Sullivan’s forceful ruling reaffirms that Congress—not the president or his appointees—sets the rules for how public money is managed and disclosed. The decision also highlights the essential role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law when other branches fail.

The Justice Department has until Thursday morning to respond, should it wish to appeal the ruling. Legal experts say an appeal is possible, but the clarity and force of Sullivan’s opinion may make it difficult to overturn.

Meanwhile, transparency advocates are celebrating the decision as a precedent-setting moment. “This is a win not just for watchdogs, but for every American who wants to know how their money is being spent,” said Noah Bookbinder, president of CREW. “We hope this sends a clear message to future administrations: you cannot hide from the law.”

The ruling comes at a time when battles over government transparency are intensifying across the country. From records requests to whistleblower protections, advocates say the fight is far from over.

But for now, Judge Sullivan’s decision stands as a powerful reminder: the courts remain the last line of defense for the public’s right to know. In his own words, “Defendants are therefore required to stop violating the law!”