In a dramatic turn of events on March 18, 2025, representatives from Elon Musk's controversial Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) entered the headquarters of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP), with the assistance of D.C. police, sparking outrage among those within the organization and beyond. This action followed the recent firing of USIP's acting president, George Moose, who has since vowed to take legal action against what he termed an "illegal takeover by elements of the executive branch of a private nonprofit". He expressed confidence that the institute would vigorously oppose DOGE's actions in court, asserting, "We believe we have strong legal grounds for our case." The executive order facilitating this upheaval originates from U.S. President Donald Trump, who in February 2025 called for eliminating certain nonstatutory functions within governmental entities, including the USIP, which aims to promote peace worldwide.
Created in 1984 as a congressionally chartered nonprofit, USIP has historically worked to mitigate conflict and promote peace abroad. However, following a White House directive that dismantled much of its oversight board, USIP's fate has become a focal point in the broader narrative surrounding the governance under Musk's influence. After the methodical ejection of all but three board members, Moose was replaced by Kenneth Jackson—a State Department official linked to the prioritization of policies under Trump's administration that critics have argued undermine humanitarian efforts.
The chaotic events unfolded as USIP was initially visited on March 14, 2025, when DOGE representatives attempted to gain access to the building, only to be denied entry. In an unusual round of events, police officers on March 18 not only facilitated DOGE's entrance but also removed Moose from the premises as he defended his right of access. A statement from DOGE later claimed Moose illegally prevented Kenneth Jackson's access, framing their entry as lawful and justified.
Representative Don Beyer (D-Va.) expressed concern over the situation, arriving at USIP on the night of March 18 to enact congressional oversight—stating on X that USIP is an independent entity and he intends to halt DOGE's apparent power grab. Beyer echoed a growing alarm expressed through social media channels, with humanitarian advocates questioning the implications of DOGE's actions for other non-profits and organizations benefiting from U.S. funding.
Add to this tension, a federal judge intervened on the same day, declaring that Musk's drastic measures towards dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) likely infringed upon the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang orderd a halt to the inefficacy at USAID, mandating restoration of access to computer systems following lawsuits from employees concerned over the agency's dismantling. The judge’s statements indicate that both Musk's unilateral actions and the Trump administration's strategy to decimate USAID may have severe implications for future federal operations.
In early March, the Trump administration had already put most of USAID's staff on leave and aimed at cutting off its operational capabilities. This included shutting down the agency's headquarters and freezing foreign assistance to various humanitarian programs globally. Critiques of Musk's tactics intensified amidst an alarming funding cut of approximately $1.1 billion, which the International Organization for Migration confirmed would significantly impact projects designed to assist vulnerable populations, including food aid programs for refugees.
The Trump administration has claimed that DOGE and Musk are merely offering recommendations to improve government efficiency. However, Judge Chuang dismissed these claims, underscoring that Musk maintains undue influence over DOGE operations, evident from his statements and social media assertions. The judge underlined that actions taken by Musk seem to circumvent lawful protocols and governmental process. Musk's ambitions aim toward cutting billions in federal spending, yet the means by which he is attempting this have raised grave constitutional concerns.
Auditors of the situation have commented that the pace of DOGE's actions severely undermines proper auditing and oversight principles, with experienced professionals weighing in that what Musk’s team is doing does not resemble legitimate auditing. They raised alarms about the potential for mishandling confidential data and pointed out the lack of experience among many individuals on DOGE.
These events are unfolding against the backdrop of a broader partisan divide, where many opponents of the administration argue that Musk’s and Trump’s agenda is an assault on government integrity. Critics fear that the administration's unorthodox approach towards managing federal functions is simultaneously jeopardizing not only international aid but also the safety and efficiency of domestic programs. As these overlapping crises develop, many are left questioning whether a line has been crossed in the operations of federal agencies.
The unprecedented situation at USIP exemplifies what some see as an aggressive approach to governance, intertwining business-like efficiency with sweeping governmental overhaul. With legal battles expected to ensue and heightened scrutiny from Congress and watchdog groups, the coming weeks are likely to reveal more about the implications of DOGE's actions, shaping the landscape of federal oversight and humanitarian efforts in the U.S. and abroad.
