A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) likely violated the Constitution, delivering a significant rebuke to billionaire Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The ruling came from U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, who ordered that USAID should be restored to full operation following intensive cuts that targeted the agency as part of the Trump administration's broader plans.
In a 68-page decision, Judge Chuang ordered Musk and DOGE to immediately restore computer access and email to all employees of USAID. This includes individuals who had been placed on administrative leave. The injunction blocks additional efforts to close the agency, effectively pausing any attempts to shut down the essential services USAID provides to vulnerable populations both domestically and abroad.
Judge Chuang stated that the evidence suggested Musk made decisions concerning the closure of USAID's headquarters and the agency's website, despite official claims that he was merely an advisor to President Donald Trump. His ruling emphasized the constitutional breaches Musk and DOGE likely committed, stating they "usurped the authority of the public’s elected representatives in Congress to make decisions on whether, when, and how to eliminate a federal government agency.”
The ruling follows a tumultuous period since February 2025, when the Trump administration placed nearly all of USAID's staff on indefinite leave and notified over 1,600 employees they would be terminated. This drastic action was part of a sweeping effort to eliminate what the Trump administration described as a wasteful agency that purportedly advanced a liberal agenda.
The judge directed Musk and DOGE to provide a written agreement within two weeks to ensure USAID can reoccupy its former headquarters located in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C. This building had been enveloped by changes initiated under Musk’s regime, where vast staff layoffs took place and cutting payments to a majority of contractors became the norm. As a result, only approximately 500 of the awards related to USAID’s operations remained intact.
Critics of the Trump administration's heavy-handed approach argue that such attempts to dismantle USAID will seriously undermine American influence abroad, adversely affecting the most vulnerable populations reliant on U.S. funding for essential services like health care and food security.
In his ruling, Judge Chuang underscored that Musk and DOGE cannot make any further staffing reductions or contract cancellations concerning USAID. The judge specified that without the express authorization of a legally competent USAID official, MUSK and DOGE personnel are prohibited from engaging in any actions regarding the agency.
This ruling has been regarded as a considerable triumph for the 26 current and former USAID employees, along with contractors who brought the legal challenge against DOGE and Musk. They maintain that the actions taken by Musk and DOGE deviated significantly from the established constitutional norms and were executed without proper authority.
Moreover, Judge Chuang noted that Musk’s engagement with the agency must be seen against the backdrop of similar actions across different federal bureaus, revealing a pattern of potential constitutional overreach. Evidence suggested Musk had also been involved in steering the closure of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) headquarters.
In a broader context, this case emphasizes the importance of established government structures and the need for accountability within federal operations. The Appointments Clause of the Constitution, as highlighted by Judge Chuang, mandates that individuals wielding substantial governmental power must be appointed properly by the president and confirmed by the Senate.
The case is emblematic of a clash between the executive branch’s desire to exert direct control over federal agencies and the role of Congress in overseeing these entities. The judge's opinion strongly underlines that the public interest is undermined when authority is bypassed and significant governmental changes are conducted without legislative oversight.
Supporters of the ruling, such as Norm Eisen, executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund, hailed it as a pivotal victory. Eisen referred to Musk's actions as “surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel,” arguing that the implications reach far beyond merely the functioning of USAID, impacting the stability of the entire government.
The implications of this decision extend beyond just the USAID’s operations. It signals an ongoing scrutiny over the broader machinations behind DOGE's establishment and the push for a significant restructuring of federal governance, which critics denounce as an unconstitutional usurpation of power.
Judge Chuang’s order effectively stalls Musk’s efforts to unilaterally implement drastic policy changes at USAID without navigating the legally mandated paths. According to reports, the Trump administration has hinted at an appeal against the ruling. A White House spokesperson characterized the judgment as a “miscarriage of justice,” condemning the ongoing legal scrutiny surrounding Musk’s role.
This ruling serves as a critical reminder that while the current administration seeks to reshape federal agencies, the checks and balances outlined in the Constitution remain pivotal in determining the direction of the government. As the case unfolds, its ramifications will certainly resonate in the ongoing discussions surrounding the authority of appointed officials and the operations of federal agencies.
For now, the future of USAID is cautiously optimistic, pending the government’s response to the judicial rebuke and subsequent actions regarding its operational pathways. As this situation develops, all eyes remain keenly focused on the interplay between governance and the potentially transformative impacts on American foreign aid efforts.
