Judge blocks USAID shutdown, citing constitutional violation

By Al Mayadeen English
Source: News websites
19 Mar 2025 10:46
1 Shares

A federal judge ruled that Elon Musk and the Trump administration likely violated the US Constitution by shutting down USAID, ordering its reinstatement and blocking further dismantling efforts.

Listen

The sign for the U.S. Agency for International Development, or USAID, is seen outside of the agency's headquarters in Washington, Friday, February 7, 2025. (AP)

A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that Elon Musk and the so-called “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) likely violated the US Constitution by shutting down USAID, ordering the Trump administration to reverse key actions taken to dismantle the agency.

The decision by US District Judge Theodore Chuang represents a significant legal setback for the administration’s efforts to restructure federal agencies. The ruling grants an injunction that requires the Trump administration to reinstate USAID employees and contractors, restore their access to government email, security, and payment systems, and halt terminations.

Additionally, the court order mandates that USAID be allowed to return to its shuttered headquarters at the Ronald Reagan Building if the lawsuit challenging its closure is ultimately successful. The administration is expected to appeal the ruling.

The lawsuit, filed in Maryland federal district court by more than two dozen unnamed former USAID employees, centers on Musk’s role in the agency’s abrupt shutdown, including the deletion of its website and the closure of its headquarters.

In his 68-page opinion, Judge Chuang wrote that Musk had likely violated the Constitution’s Appointments Clause by exercising the broad powers of an “officer of the United States,” a role that requires Senate confirmation.

“If a president could escape appointments clause scrutiny by having advisers go beyond the traditional role of White House advisors who communicate the president’s priority to agency heads,” Chuang stated, “the appointments clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality.”

For weeks, the Trump administration has argued that USAID’s dismantling was carried out by agency leadership—specifically Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Acting Administrator Pete Marocco—who were implementing Musk’s recommendations. However, Chuang dismissed that assertion in relation to the closure of USAID’s headquarters and the erasure of its website, noting that the administration failed to provide any evidence that a USAID official had formally authorized these actions.

“Under these circumstances, the evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to defendants’ sweeping claim that Musk 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 injunction comes after six weeks of unprecedented disruption at USAID, during which 5,200 of the agency’s 6,200 global programs were abruptly terminated, employees were locked out of facilities and internal systems, and staff were reportedly ordered to destroy classified documents using shredders and “burn bags”.

The agency’s workforce has been slashed from over 10,000 employees to just 611, with Rubio stating that the remaining programs are “set for absorption” into the State Department, a move he recently described as “overdue and historic reform.”

USAID’s headquarters emerged as a focal point of controversy after multiple staff members informed The Guardian in February that Customs and Border Protection (CBP) officials had conducted extensive walkthroughs of the facility, suggesting a potential takeover while agency employees were denied entry.

According to Politico, CBP subsequently confirmed that it had officially taken over the office space and signed a lease agreement. The court order, which gives the administration 14 days to confirm USAID’s right to return to the building, implies that the space may have already been reallocated.

The injunction further bars DOGE from publishing unredacted personal information of USAID contractors and prohibits additional dismantling actions, including further terminations, contract cancellations, and the permanent deletion of electronic records.

This ruling could pose significant legal risks for Musk and DOGE, as an internal email obtained by The Guardian revealed that USAID staff had been instructed to destroy classified “SECRET” documents—potentially violating the Federal Records Act, which mandates the retention of government records for a minimum of two years.

Trump administration admits to 25,000 firings, ordered to reinstate workers

In a related development, the Trump administration has, for the first time, acknowledged in court filings that it dismissed nearly 25,000 recently hired federal employees. The filings also confirm that agencies are now working to reinstate all affected workers following a judge’s ruling that their terminations were likely unlawful.

Filed late Monday in a federal court in Baltimore, the documents contain statements from officials at 18 federal agencies, each indicating that reinstated probationary employees are being placed on administrative leave, at least temporarily.

The mass dismissals, part of Trump’s broader efforts to reshape the federal workforce under DOGE led by Musk, had been widely reported. However, these filings provide the first comprehensive accounting of the terminations.

Most agencies reported terminating a few hundred employees, but the Treasury Department alone dismissed approximately 7,600 workers, the Department of Agriculture let go around 5,700, and the Department of Health and Human Services cut more than 3,200 positions.

On March 13, US District Judge James Bredar ruled that the terminations, which began in February, violated regulations governing mass layoffs of federal employees, and ordered the reinstatement of those affected pending further legal proceedings.

The lawsuit challenging the dismissals was brought by 19 Democratic-led states and Washington, DC, arguing that the firings would lead to a surge in unemployment claims and increase demand for state-provided social services.

The Trump administration has appealed Bredar’s decision and, on Monday, requested that an appellate court in Richmond, Virginia, put his ruling on hold while the case is litigated.

Just hours before Bredar’s ruling, a federal judge in San Francisco had also ordered the reinstatement of probationary employees at six agencies, including five covered by Bredar’s order, as well as the Department of Defense. The administration has appealed that ruling as well.

In the Monday filings, agency officials stated that they had either reinstated all affected employees or were in the process of doing so. However, they cautioned that the large-scale rehiring had placed a significant administrative burden on agencies, causing confusion and disruption.

Officials also warned that if an appellate court overturned Bredar’s order, agencies would have to dismiss the employees again, leading to repeated shifts in their employment status within a short period.

Bredar has scheduled a hearing for March 26 to determine whether his ruling should remain in effect while the case proceeds—a process that could take months or even longer to resolve.