WASHINGTON—A federal judge on Feb. 13 extended an order for one week blocking the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) from placing 2,200 employees on paid administrative leave or forcing workers in foreign countries to return to the United States against their will.
District Judge Carl Nichols also ordered that the government provide specifics on its plan to protect employees placed on administrative leave in foreign nations and to compensate employees who did not immediately return to the United States.
The order comes from a lawsuit brought by the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) and the American Foreign Service against President Donald Trump, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, USAID, and the departments of State and the Treasury.
The lawsuit was preceded by Trump’s executive order declaring a 90-day pause on foreign aid, with exceptions for food and medicine programs, as well as the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) unearthing questionable payments being disbursed by USAID.
DOGE, an advisory commission headed by Elon Musk, has been tasked with shrinking the federal government, identifying fraudulent spending, and cutting waste.
On Feb. 7, thousands of USAID employees were set to be placed on paid leave; the agency asked them to cease work, and they were locked out of email, payment, and security systems.
The government also ordered workers in foreign countries to return home to the United States within 30 days, in which case their travel expenses would be covered. If not, they would have to apply for a reimbursement waiver.
Nichols granted the block against the forced administrative leave and the repatriation order just hours before they were to take effect.
However, he said on Feb. 13 that he was misinformed on Feb. 7 when he granted the original order because it had been presented, falsely, that all employees were being forced to return within 30 days, with no exceptions.
Nichols noted that he was acting only on the information available at that time and that his order had not essentially altered the government policy that was already in place.
Their suit seeks to halt the forced administrative leave and repatriation to the United States. They also ask to regain access to their computer and payment systems.
The plaintiffs allege “irreparable harm” by the government, saying that forcing employees to abruptly return to the United States would upend their lives. They noted that some workers had been in their assigned country for years and had no U.S. residence to return to.
Arrangements would also need to be made for their children’s schooling.
Plaintiffs also alleged the rapid shutdown of USAID placed employees in danger by further destabilizing already unstable regions such as the Gaza Strip.
They warned that, in some cases, the employees would be financially liable for contracts the government was supposed to pay. The judge was unconvinced by this last argument, calling it “far-fetched.”
When asked what irreparable harm the plaintiffs would suffer, one of their attorneys said that the harm includes emotional distress caused by the dismantling of USAID.
“They are being asked to stand by passively or participate actively” in shutting down USAID, she said.
Nichols pointed out those harms would be the same if the government simply fired an employee. He was more concerned about safety issues caused by broken communications.
In late January, civil unrest broke out in Kinshasa, the capital city of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Doe testified that USAID employees’ flight from the region was delayed because it was unclear if the government would pay for it. They applied for a waiver, but it was not immediately granted.
Attorneys for the government said employee security is at the forefront of its concerns, and it would utilize other measures to ensure the protection of workers cut off from the normal systems.
When the judge asked for more details, the attorney was unable to provide specifics, such as how long the paid leave would last before employees were terminated.
