Organization of American Historians v. Office of Management and Budget

• Court: District Court, District of Columbia
• Decided: May 29, 2026
• Docket: Civil Action No. 2026-1281
• Status: Published

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

ORGANIZATION OF AMERICAN HISTORIANS,

Plaintiff, Case No. 1:26-cv-01281 (TNM) v.

OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM ORDER

This case presents an odd pairing: a Freedom of Information Act request coupled

with a motion for a preliminary injunction. The Organization of American Historians

seeks records from three federal agencies about the Trump Administration’s supposed

efforts to rewrite American history. In the Historians’ view, time is of the essence—so

much so that they move for a preliminary injunction to force the agencies to release the

records within 30 days. But the Historians fall short on every preliminary-injunction

factor. The Court thus denies their unusual motion.

I.

The Organization of American Historians “is the largest professional society

dedicated to the teaching and study of American history.” Compl., ECF No. 1, ¶ 3. The

Historians accuse the Trump Administration of pursuing a “campaign to direct, condition,

and reshape the interpretation of American history at federally managed institutions.” Id.

¶ 1.

1 That concern centers on President Donald Trump’s March 2025 Executive Order

titled “Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History.” Exec. Order No. 14253, 90

Fed. Reg. 14563 (Mar. 27, 2025). The Executive Order outlines the Administration’s

policy “to restore Federal sites dedicated to history . . . to solemn and uplifting public

monuments that remind Americans of our extraordinary heritage.” Id. at 14563. To that

end, it instructs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) “to

ensure that future appropriations to the Smithsonian Institution . . . prohibit expenditure

on exhibits or programs that degrade shared American values.” Id. at 14564. The

Executive Order also directs the Secretary of the Interior to review federal historical sites

for “content that inappropriately disparage[s] Americans past or living.” Id. Only one

command has a deadline: “The Secretary of the Interior shall provide sufficient funding,

as available, to improve the infrastructure of Independence National Historical Park,

which shall be complete by July 4, 2026, the 250th anniversary of the signing of the

Declaration of Independence.” Id.

As the Historians see things, the Administration’s historical revisionism is in full

swing. They allege, for example, that the National Park Service (“NPS”) has been

removing disfavored historical content at various sites across the Nation. Compl. ¶ 10.

The Administration’s supposed “focal point” is the “federal commemorative initiative,

‘Freedom 250,’ centered on July 4 and the 250th anniversary.” Id. ¶ 11. According to

the Historians, “[c]ontent decisions about what will be presented to millions of visitors at

national parks and Smithsonian museums during the anniversary celebrations are being

made now.” Id.

2 Resolved to learn more about this campaign, the Historians submitted FOIA

requests to OMB, NPS, and the Department of the Interior (NPS’s parent agency). Id.

¶ 12. Their March 2026 requests sought records on the agencies’ efforts to “implement[]

or coordinat[e] Executive Order 14253 or any directive concerning the presentation of

American history.” See id. ¶¶ 13–15. For each request, the Historians demanded

expedited processing. Id. ¶ 16. None of the agencies granted that demand. Id. ¶¶ 19–20.

Nor has any agency released records. Id. ¶ 22.

The Historians want to speed things up. They thus launched suit here, claiming

that the agencies violated FOIA by failing to grant expedited processing. Id. ¶¶ 23–27.

Two days after their Complaint, the Historians submitted a Motion for a Preliminary

Injunction. ECF No. 4. That filing asks the Court to order the agencies “to grant [the

Historians’] requests for expedited processing . . . and to complete processing and

produce all nonexempt responsive records within thirty days.” Id. at 1. The Court

deemed the Motion resolvable on the briefs. Min. Order 5/2/2026. It now denies the

Historians’ bid for preliminary relief.

II.

A preliminary injunction is “an extraordinary and drastic remedy” that is “never

awarded as of right.” Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 689–90 (2008) (cleaned up).

“[A] plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a clear showing that he is

likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence

of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is

in the public interest.” Starbucks Corp. v. McKinney, 602 U.S. 339, 346 (2024) (cleaned

3 up). Where the Government is the party opposing injunctive relief, the latter two factors

“merge.” See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009).

The Historians seek a remedy that is rarer still. “Preliminary injunctions requiring

agencies to expedite FOIA processing and to produce responsive documents by a certain

date are ‘mandatory’ preliminary injunctions.” Democracy Forward Found. v. OMB,

780 F. Supp. 3d 61, 72 (D.D.C. 2025) (cleaned up). Those injunctions “alter, rather than

preserve, the status quo by commanding some positive act.” Daily Caller v. Dep’t of

State, 152 F. Supp. 3d 1, 6 (D.D.C. 2015) (cleaned up). This strays from the preliminary

injunction’s usual role as “a stopgap measure, generally limited as to time, and intended

to maintain a status quo or ‘to preserve the relative positions of the parties until a trial on

the merits can be held.’” See Sherley v. Sebelius, 689 F.3d 776, 781–82 (D.C. Cir. 2012)

(quoting Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)).

Indeed, the word “preliminary” seems like a misnomer here. In asking to compel

the agencies to grant expedited processing and quickly release records, the Historians

“essentially request[] the full relief [they] seek[]” in the Complaint. See Daily Caller,

152 F. Supp. 3d at 6–7. That demand flouts the maxim that “a preliminary injunction

should not work to give a party essentially the full relief he seeks on the merits.” See

Dorfmann v. Boozer, 414 F.2d 1168, 1173 n.13 (D.C. Cir. 1969) (per curiam); cf. Lackey

v. Stinnie, 604 U.S. 192, 200 (2025) (stating that preliminary injunctions “do not

conclusively resolve legal disputes”).

In all its peculiarity, the Historians’ requested relief cannot satisfy even the

standard test.

4 III.

Consider the merits and irreparable harm. In this unusual FOIA setting, those

factors “track[] closely with” each other. See Democracy Forward Found., 780 F. Supp.

3d at 74 (cleaned up). The Historians’ failure to show likely entitlement to expedited

processing mimics their shortcoming on irreparable injury.

Agencies typically process FOIA requests on a first-come, first-served basis. Am.

Oversight v. DOJ, 292 F. Supp. 3d 501, 505 (D.D.C. 2018). In rare situations, some

requesters may jump the line. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E). FOIA requires agencies to

provide expedited processing—i.e., to process requests “as soon as practicable”—if the

requester shows a “compelling need.” Id. In relevant part, a “compelling need” exists

when the requester is “primarily engaged in disseminating information” and there is an

“urgency to inform the public concerning actual or alleged Federal Government activity.”

Id. § 552(a)(6)(E)(v)(II). 1

Courts assess three factors in deciding whether a FOIA request is sufficiently

urgent: “(1) whether the request concerns a matter of current exigency to the American

public; (2) whether the consequences of delaying a response would compromise a

significant recognized interest; and (3) whether the request concerns federal government

activity.” Al-Fayed v. CIA, 254 F.3d 300, 310 (D.C. Cir. 2001). This test should be

“narrowly applied.” Id. (cleaned up).

1 The Government does not dispute that the Historians are “primarily engaged in disseminating information.” See Defs.’ Opp’n, ECF No. 7, at 32–38. Rightly so. See Compl. ¶ 3 (describing how the Historians “publish[] a peer-reviewed journal, issue[] public statements and policy analyses, convene[] national conferences, and regularly disseminate[] historical scholarship and analysis to educators, policymakers, journalists, and the public”). 5 FOIA plaintiffs usually founder on factor two. The Government performs lots of

“activity” that is “of current exigency to the American public.” See id. That alone does

not warrant expedited processing. Expedition would lose all practical meaning if most

FOIA requests could claim priority. See id. (“[A]n unduly generous approach would also

disadvantage those requestors who do qualify for expedition, because prioritizing all

requests would effectively prioritize none.”).

To guard against this scenario, courts demand a showing that “the consequences

of delaying a response would compromise a significant recognized interest.” Id. This

requires plaintiffs to “identify a specific end point at which the information’s value drops

off altogether — i.e., the conclusion of a process such as a legislative vote, impeachment

proceeding, national census, court case, or the like.” See Heritage Found. v. EPA, No.

CV 23-748 (JEB), 2023 WL 2954418, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 14, 2023). “[T]he question

boils down to whether the records requested will become stale after the requested date

and thus be of little value to inform the public of ongoing proceedings of national

importance.” CREW v. DOGE, 769 F. Supp. 3d 8, 19 (D.D.C. 2025) (cleaned up).

Irreparable harm is much the same. To establish that element, plaintiffs must

show that the requested records are “1) time-sensitive and highly probative, or even

essential to the integrity, 2) of an imminent event, 3) after which event the utility of the

records would be lessened or lost.” Am. Oversight v. DOJ, No. CV 25-3200 (JEB), 2026

WL 914925, at *4 (D.D.C. Apr. 3, 2026) (cleaned up). FOIA plaintiffs clear that hurdle

only rarely: “when requested FOIA disclosures [a]re integral to, and certain to lose value

after, events with irreversible consequences.” Id. (collecting cases); see, e.g., Washington

Post v. DHS, 459 F. Supp. 2d 61, 75 (D.D.C. 2006) (finding irreparable harm where

6 newspaper sought information related to “impending election”); Protect Democracy

Project, Inc. v. Dep’t of Def., 263 F. Supp. 3d 293, 300–01 (D.D.C. 2017) (same where

looming military strike on Syria was type of event that “cannot be undone”). “Absent a

critical need for records at a scheduled or imminent event, however, preliminary

injunctive relief to expedite production of records in FOIA cases is generally denied.”

New York Times Co. v. Def. Health Agency, No. 21-CV-566 (BAH), 2021 WL 1614817,

at *8 (D.D.C. Apr. 25, 2021) (footnote omitted).

Faced with this tall order, the Historians offer little. They purport to “identify the

imminent event with precision: July 4, 2026, the deadline [that Executive Order] 14253

imposes by its own terms.” Pl.’s Mem., ECF No. 4-1, at 14. But this oversells the

Executive Order, which sets a July 4 deadline only for “improv[ing] the infrastructure of

Independence National Historical Park.” See Exec. Order No. 14253, 90 Fed. Reg. at

14564. Nowhere does the Executive Order peg the Administration’s supposed historical

revisionism to that date or any other one. See id. at 14563–65.

Indeed, the Historians betray their own failure to mark out July 4 as “an express

compliance deadline” in admitting that “the administration’s initiative runs through

December 2026.” See Pl.’s Mem. at 14–15. They further undercut their case for July 4

in alleging that the Administration’s “deadline for content corrections” at the

Smithsonian was December 10, 2025, and thus has already “expired.” English Decl.,

ECF No. 4-2, ¶ 6. Even by the Historians’ own telling, then, July 4 is both too early and

too late. Their inability to identify a specific timeframe is fatal. See Heritage Found.,

2023 WL 2954418, at *5 (denying preliminary injunction where plaintiffs “identified no

7 specific proceeding — be it a vote on legislation, a proposed administrative action, or a

judicial process — after which the sought records would lose substantial value”).

In their reply, the Historians retreat. They now contend that “[t]he relevant

‘event’ in this context is not a single fixed date, but the finalization and implementation

of decisions across federal institutions on a rolling basis—after which the opportunity for

contemporaneous public evaluation is materially diminished.” Pl.’s Reply, ECF No. 8,

at 7. But that position is no more defensible. The Historians fail to show that the

requested records “will become stale” at any point, whether after July 4 or any later date.

See CREW, 769 F. Supp. 3d at 19 (cleaned up). Debates about American history are as

old as their subject. Those discussions are unlikely to quiet down any time soon, and the

Court is confident that the Historians will continue to have a voice in them. NPS

informational signage that is taken down today may later be added back, and vice versa.

Indeed, it seems unlikely that the signage currently being updated is the first such

signage, or that the new placards will be the last. Overall, there simply is “no reason to

believe” that the public’s interest in our Nation’s history “will evaporate” after the

Declaration’s 250th anniversary, or that one version of history will be locked into place.

See Democracy Forward Found., 780 F. Supp. 3d at 76.

Summing up, the Historians have not demonstrated likely entitlement to expedited

processing, much less to the release of records within 30 days. See CREW, 769 F. Supp.

3d at 19 (ruling that a plaintiff who “seeks not just expedited processing but production

of its requests by a date certain” must show likely entitlement to expedited processing

and to “hav[ing] processing finished by the requested date certain” (cleaned up)). They

likewise come up short on irreparable harm. The Historians’ request “lacks the imminent

8 finality that ha[s] led courts to” award the rare preliminary injunction. See Am.

Oversight, 2026 WL 914925, at *5. The Administration’s historical campaign does not

have “irreversible consequences” like elections or military strikes. See id. at *4;

Washington Post, 459 F. Supp. 2d at 75; Protect Democracy Project, 263 F. Supp. 3d at

300–01. Ruling for the Historians “would mean that the identification of almost any

imminent event would be a basis for preliminary relief ordering production of records

having some potential connection to that event”—which would launch “[a]n open season

for [FOIA] preliminary injunctions.” See Heritage Found. v. Dep’t of State, No. CV 24-

2862 (TJK), 2024 WL 4607501, at *5 (D.D.C. Oct. 29, 2024). The caselaw and common

sense forbid that drastic move.

In closing, a brief word on the “merged” equities and public interest. See Nken,

556 U.S. at 435. These factors further militate against preliminary relief—most notably

because allowing the Historians to skip the queue would “impose undue hardship on

similarly situated FOIA requesters, who are depending on, and adhering to, regular

administrative FOIA record production processes to obtain information important to

them.” New York Times Co., 2021 WL 1614817, at *10; cf. Yaghoubnezhad v. Stufft, 734

F. Supp. 3d 87, 106 (D.D.C. 2024) (“Relief that would simply reorder a queue of

applicants seeking adjudication is generally viewed as inappropriate when no net gain in

such adjudications is achieved.” (cleaned up)). The hardship to other requesters only

grows “[a]s outstanding requests pile up at agencies” and FOIA suits proliferate on court

dockets. See Am. Ctr. for L. & Just. v. DHS, 573 F. Supp. 3d 78, 83 (D.D.C. 2021). In

this setting, a preliminary injunction would further increase the burden by leapfrogging

the less drastic mechanisms FOIA envisions for urgent requests, like expedited

9 processing and production orders. See 5 U.S.C. § 552(a)(6)(E) (expedited processing);

id. § 552(a)(4)(B) (production orders). Ultimately, then, the equities and public interest

reinforce what the merits and irreparable harm already compel.

* * *

“The past is never dead. It’s not even past.” William Faulkner, Requiem for a

Nun 73 (1951). This truism hints at why the Historians’ urgency is ill-founded. The

records they desire will remain relevant even when produced in their due course. A

preliminary injunction is unwarranted here.

For these reasons, it is hereby

ORDERED that Plaintiff’s [4] Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is DENIED. 2026.05.29 14:31:09 -04'00' Dated: May 29, 2026 TREVOR N. McFADDEN United States District Judge