A federal judge has ruled that Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) likely violated the Constitution when they attempted to shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). In a significant decision made on March 18, 2025, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland issued a preliminary injunction halting further dismantling efforts by DOGE, which had deteriorated the agency's operations over the past six weeks. The ruling requires the restoration of email and computer access to all USAID employees, even though it does not reverse previous layoffs at the agency.
This ruling came as a response to a lawsuit filed by a group of current and former USAID employees who argued that Musk's control over the agency was excessive and unconstitutional. They claimed that Musk and DOGE's actions contravened the Appointments Clause of the Constitution and violated principles of separation of powers. The judge described the claims as serious, indicating that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed in their case.
In an accompanying memorandum, the court outlined that DOGE has harmed not only USAID employees but also the public interest by infringing on Congress's constitutional authority to supervise federal agencies. The decision highlights the importance of maintaining checks and balances within the federal government, specifically with respect to government officials. Plaintiffs argued Musk operated as a de facto government officer, requiring either Senate consent or congressional guidance for his position, which he did not receive. Musk and his team had taken unilateral actions without proper authorization from agency officials.
The ruling also put President Donald Trump’s administration in a difficult position as the president vowed to appeal the decision, labeling the judge as 'rogue' during an interview with Fox News. Trump stated, 'I guarantee you we will be appealing it. We have rogue judges that are destroying our country.' This assertion hints at a possible escalation in what has already become a heated battle over the future of USAID and federal agency governance during Trump’s presidency.
The current environment surrounding the agency reflects broader efforts by the Trump administration to significantly roll back federal government functionalities. Since his inauguration, Trump has advanced a series of executive orders, including a 90-day freeze on all U.S. foreign aid, directly impacting USAID's operations. Following this directive, Musk and DOGE froze payments to the agency and limited access, a move described by some critics as reckless. Musk himself stirred controversy when he infamously stated on social media that he had 'spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.'
In court, the defense for Musk and DOGE argued that their roles were merely advisory and that agency officials had final authority over actions taken. However, Judge Chuang disagreed with this perspective, firmly stating in his opinion that the evidence showed Musk had indeed made significant decisions regarding the agency without the requisite authority.
The implications of the judge's ruling are profound. While the restoration of email access and electronic systems is a positive step for many employees, the overall functionality of USAID remains compromised. With a staff reduced to only a few hundred individuals and a significant number of contracts terminated, the agency's capabilities to fulfill its mission in providing aid internationally continue to dwindle.
This ongoing saga has sparked widespread concern among public policy leaders and commentators, who argue that such drastic measures taken by Musk and DOGE reflect a move away from democratic processes. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer expressed alarm, stating, 'Whatever DOGE is doing, it is certainly not what democracy looks like or has ever looked like in the grand history of this country.' This encapsulates the apprehensions voiced by many regarding the implications of Musk's control over vital government functions.
The future of USAID hangs in the balance as the legal battles continue. The recent ruling serves as both a victory for those advocating for government accountability and a setback to Musk's aggressive attempts to reshape government efficiency. With Trump committed to pursuing an appeal, this debate over the constitutional limits of executive power promises to unfold further in the coming weeks.
