Judge Blocks DOGE Dismantling of USAID

Government officials had argued that dismantling USAID fit within the president’s authority to conduct foreign affairs.

The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) in Washington on Feb. 1, 2025. Carolyn Kaster/AP Photo

A federal judge said on March 18 that Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) team likely violated the U.S. Constitution by moving to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).

Closing the USAID headquarters, laying off the overwhelming majority of the USAID workforce, and terminating most of the agency’s contracts violate the separation of powers established by the Constitution, because Congress outlined specific requirements for significant actions related to USAID and Musk and other officials have not complied with the requirements, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang said in an opinion.

Government officials had argued that dismantling USAID fit within the president’s authority to conduct foreign affairs, as outlined in Article II of the Constitution.

Chuang said, however, that the actions at issue “relate largely to the structure of and resources made available to a federal agency, not to the direct conduct of foreign policy or engagement with foreign governments.”

He ordered Musk and DOGE to reinstate access for USAID workers and contractors to USAID systems and not to take any further action relating to placing employees on leave, firing workers, or terminating contracts.

The federal government can appeal the injunction.

The White House did not respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration have in recent weeks fired or placed on leave most USAID employees, terminated 83 percent of USAID contracts, and closed USAID headquarters, which customs and border patrol employees have since taken over.

Upon his return to the White House, Trump in executive orders established DOGE within his office and ordered agencies to work with the department to improve efficiency and reduce waste.

Trump has said Musk is leading DOGE, while government officials say Amy Gleason, DOGE’s administrator, is the head of the department and that Musk is a presidential adviser.

Chuang found that Musk wielded significant authority despite not being confirmed to a high-level position by the U.S. Senate, in violation of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause.

“Evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to Defendants’ sweeping claim that Musk has acted only as an advisor, Musk made the decisions to shutdown USAID’s headquarters and website even though he ‘lacked the authority to make that decision,’” Chuang wrote.

The judge pointed to Musk’s social media posts, which included a Feb. 2 comment on X that “we spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.”

Chuang also said that government officials must prepare the building USAID’s headquarters formerly occupied in Washington for the agency if there is a final ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. That requirement will be stayed if the USAID acting administrator or another official “with the authority to do so on behalf of USAID” submits to the court a ratification of the decision to close the offices.

The order came in a case brought by USAID workers and contractors, who said that Musk was exercising an extraordinary amount of power even though he was not confirmed by the Senate.

The dismantling of USAID resulted in harm to the plaintiffs, according to court filings. One was said to face the shutoff of phone, electricity, and internet, leaving the employee without a security system despite being stationed in a high-risk area of Central America.

Another plaintiff has not been paid the remainder of unused annual leave and expressed concern that it will never be paid because “there is hardly anyone left in the agency to process these payments.”

Mimi Marziani, a lawyer with Marziani, Stevens, & Gonzalez PLLC who is helping represent the plaintiffs, said in a statement emailed to The Epoch Times: “We are proud to stand up for the plaintiffs and the Constitution, which is designed to guard against these very sorts of abuses because our nation depends upon a government for all, not for a few.”

Correction: Due to an editing error, a previous version of this article misstated which part of the injunction could be repealed if the defendants secured a signed ratification. The Epoch Times regrets the error.