The Trump administration has dubbed itself “The Most Transparent Administration in History,” a label that appears to be more symbolic than substantive. According to a report by the New York Times, a senior official at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has instructed employees to destroy classified documents and personnel files by shredding or burning them. This directive, issued by Erica Y. Carr, the agency’s acting executive secretary, raises concerns about the potential obliteration of evidence relevant to ongoing legal challenges against the Trump administration’s attempts to freeze aid and dismantle the agency.

The documents in question could contain information pertinent to the legal battles over the administration’s efforts to freeze aid and dismantle USAID, which a federal judge recently deemed a likely violation of the Constitution. The instruction to “shred as many documents first, and reserve the burn bags for when the shredder becomes unavailable or needs a break” has been criticized as a transparent attempt to destroy evidence. The move may also violate federal law, as the American Foreign Service Association has warned that the destruction of documents may contravene the Federal Records Act, which mandates that agencies retain certain documents in a digital format before destroying them.

USAID is not the only agency attempting to limit access to documents. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which has been instrumental in gutting USAID, has been operating in secrecy, with Elon Musk expressing displeasure over staff members being named in public. Furthermore, DOGE has ignored Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, claiming immunity by arguing that it is a “presidential records entity.” However, a District Court judge has recently ruled that DOGE is likely subject to FOIA, stating that “the public would be irreparably harmed by an indefinite delay in unearthing the records.”

The ruling may mark a turning point in the administration’s efforts to maintain transparency, or lack thereof. While government agencies often employ tactics to skirt requests, DOGE may be compelled to comply with FOIA, a development that a truly transparent administration should welcome. The question remains whether DOGE will willingly cooperate or continue to resist, but the court’s decision has established a legal foundation for greater accountability.