A federal judge has ruled to block the Trump administration's efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), citing constitutional violations linked to the involvement of billionaire Elon Musk and his Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE). Image credit: CNN
(The Post News)- The Trump administration’s effort to deconstruct the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) has been ordered to be enjoined by a federal judge on grounds of constitutional violations from billionaire Elon Musk and his Department for Government Efficiency (DOGE). The order was made on Tuesday by judge Theodore D. Chuang, of the U.S. District Court of Maryland, marking a significant legal test for the move by the Musk-led initiative.
The court holds that Defendants’ unilaterally aimed attempts to shut down USAID likely violated the United States Constitution,” Judge Chuang said in his ruling. “In such circumstances, where DOGE Team Members have displayed a deeply alarming lack of concern for security clearance procedures and agency regulations, the potential disclosure of sensitive personal information could harm the plaintiffs and public interest.”
This ruling is one of the biggest legal losses for Trump and Musk as they try to reduce federal spending and merge government agencies. The suit was filed by 26 anonymous USAID employees, who argued that the shutdown of the agency not only jeopardized their jobs but also affected vital foreign programs and security assistance that USAID provides.
The court pointed out Musk’s troubled part in the dismantling of USAID, particularly given that he had not been officially nominated or cleared by the Senate for a government role. Musk, who is a key advisor to President Trump, has been accused of seizing control of the operations of several federal agencies using DOGE, a department created to streamline government efficiency.
Chuang quoted a few of Trump and Musk’s public remarks acknowledging the control Musk exercises over the agency, even contradicting legal arguments to the opposite made by Trump’s administration before courts. Pointedly, the judge quoted public speeches and interviews in which Trump and Musk discussed publicly Musk’s role in influencing the government’s decision-making process.
“The fact that Musk has publicly expressed that he’d like to shutter USAID and took credit in person for taking steps to make it happen signifies his engagement,” Judge Chuang stated, as she added Musk’s tweets affirming his dominance over DOGE’s actions.
The ruling is a significant victory for plaintiffs and activist organizations that have fought to protect the integrity of USAID, among the U.S. government’s most vital agencies for foreign assistance and global development. Executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund and the representative acting on behalf of the plaintiffs, Norm Eisen, hailed the decision as a major step towards bringing Musk and DOGE to heel for what he termed “illegality” in their approach to the government.
“This decision is a milestone in standing up to Musk and DOGE’s outrageous attempt to dismantle critical government functions,” Eisen said in a statement. “They are damaging not just the American people USAID serves but the vast majority of Americans who rely on our government’s stability.”
The ruling has also been met with a response from the White House. Spokeswoman Anna Kelly condemned the ruling, calling the judge for attempting to sabotage President Trump’s agenda. “Rogue judges are undermining the will of the American people,” Kelly said, noting that the administration is going to appeal the ruling.
The Trump administration’s legal team, who have asserted that Musk’s involvement in DOGE is only advisory, have indicated that they will appeal the ruling. President Trump expressed his dismay at the ruling when he spoke with Fox News, calling the judge a “rogue” and promising an appeal. “We have rogue judges that are destroying our country,” Trump said.
Despite political controversy over the case, the decision has the potential to have wider implications for how the courts deal with the increasing power of private individuals such as Musk in matters of state. It also arrives amidst a broader push by the Trump administration to reduce federal expenditures and the size of the government, an effort that has been met with opposition in numerous other arenas as well.
USAID’s fate as of now is unclear, with over 80% of its operations allegedly on hold. But the court ruling gives employees and contractors affected by the shutdown a temporary reprieve, enabling them to use systems and the chance to reinstate some of their lost entitlements.
This case, and the long struggle about the role of private actors in government, will probably continue to develop, with far-reaching implications for how government agencies will be permitted to act in the future.
About the Author
