Democracy Forward filed a lawsuit against four government agencies, the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the General Services Administration (GSA), U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), asking the court to compel them to comply with public records laws and reveal documents regarding the use of AI in dismantling existing federal regulations.

According to records obtained by Democracy Forward in response to another FOIA request and public reports, the GSA has taken a central role in the Trump-Vance administration’s aggressive regulatory agenda by rolling out an artificial intelligence evaluation suite that enables federal agencies to experiment with and adopt AI on a massive scale, and by making recommendations on removing federal regulations and rules, alongside OMB. 

OMB has additionally rolled out a SweetREX Regulation AI Plan Builder, a program developed by affiliates of the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE), which is meant to expedite the review process and update regulations. OPM Director Scott Kupor has also suggested using AI to summarize comments on proposed rules and regulations.

While the administration’s interest in expanding the use of AI is clear, official documents regarding AI policies have not been released. Democracy Forward filed several requests seeking additional information under the Freedom of Information Act this year, but, though the government acknowledged receipt of the requests, it did not provide the information requested. 

This lawsuit seeks to shed light on:

  • All guidance sent or received by OPM related to the use of AI in analyzing or reviewing comments on regulations
  • All inputs put in and outputs generated by AI systems related to regulatory comments, repealing federal regulation, or rewriting federal regulation.
  • All instructions provided to staff on the usage of AI in reviewing regulatory comments or in dismantling federal regulations

The case is Democracy Forward Foundation v. GSA, et. al.