The Trump administration was accused of breaking the law in a recent lawsuit after taking down a website meant to show the public how federal funding is disbursed to agencies.  A new lawsuit filed in federal court in D.C. accused the Trump administration of violating federal law last mo nth when the online database overseen by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) “went dark, without explanation.” “Congress mandated prompt transparency for apportionments to prevent abuses of power and strengthen Congress’s and the public’s oversight of the spending process,” the complaint reads. “Absent this transparency, the president and OMB may abuse their authority over the apportionment of federal funds without public or congressional scrutiny or accountability.” The suit cites legislation enacted during the Biden administration that required the budget office to make such “apportionments” of congressionally approved funding public. Under the apportionment process, agencies are given limited authority to spend funding allocated by Congress in installments. The Hill has reached out to the OMB for comment. The lawsuit, brought by nonprofit Protect Democracy Project, names OMB and its director, Russell Vought, as defendants.  The group argued Monday that the apportionment disclosures provide “the only public source of information on how DOGE (Trump’s Department of Government Efficiency) is being funded — information that Congress and journalists have used in reporting and oversight.” The move comes as Democrats have been sounding alarm over the removal of the website in recent weeks, accusing the Trump administration of unlawfully hiding how agencies are directed to spend allocated funding. Vought said in a letter last month that was shared and criticized by Rep. Rosa DeLauro (Conn.), top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, that the agency determined it could “no longer operate and maintain this system because it requires the disclosure of sensitive, predecisional, and deliberative information.” “By their nature, apportionments and footnotes contain predecisional and deliberative information because they are interim decisions based on current circumstances and needs, and may be (and are) frequently changed as those circumstances change,” the letter stated. But the Government Accountability Office (GAO) also took issue with the Trump administration’s argument in a letter addressed to Vought last week that Democrats say confirms the site’s removal is unlawful. “We understand that OMB took down the website taking the position that it requires the disclosure of predecisional, and deliberative information,” the letter from the congressional watchdog stated. “We disagree.” The GAO notes that “apportionments are legally binding decisions on agencies under the Antideficiency Act” and said “such information, by definition, cannot be predecisional or deliberative.” “OMB also noted that apportionments may contain sensitive information which, if disclosed publicly automatically, may pose a danger to national security and foreign policy,” the GAO continued. “While there may be some information that is sensitive if disclosed publicly, it is certainly not the case that all apportionment data meets that standard.” It also noted what it described as a “statutory requirement for OMB to post the apportionment data on a public website” in previous legislation passed in recent years. The lawsuit is the latest challenge the Trump administration has faced over the move. The Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington also sued the Trump administration after the OMB’s apportionments page was taken down. ...read more read less