Judge blocks Trump, Musk from dismantling USAID in blow to crown jewel of DOGE cuts
A federal judge ruled Tuesday that President Trump’s right-hand man, Elon Musk, likely acted unconstitutionally with his directive to dismantle the US Agency for International Development (USAID) — and blocked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from making further cuts.
Maryland US District Judge Theodore Chuang imposed a preliminary injunction, ordering the Trump administration to restore email and computer access to all employees at USAID, including those who were placed on administrative leave.
Chuang, who was nominated to the federal bench by former President Barack Obama, also broadly restricted Musk and DOGE from taking actions against USAID without “express authorization” from an official at the agency.
“The court finds that Defendants’ unilateral actions to shut down USAID likely violated the United States Constitution,” Chuang wrote in a blistering 68-page ruling, giving the White House seven days to confirm in writing that email and computer access was restored to USAID employees.
The administration also has two weeks to submit documentation ensuring USAID “will be able to reoccupy USAID headquarters at its original location.”
The shuttering of USAID was one of DOGE’s prized cuts and included the firing of all employees, removal of signage from its headquarters in DC and ending programs worldwide. The Trump administration hailed the halt as a way to do away with wasteful government funding, including $60 billion in foreign aid spending and 92% of USAID grants.
A group of more than two dozen current and former USAID workers had sued the Trump administration over its efforts to gut the agency tasked with doling out foreign aid.
Trump had ripped the independent agency after taking office, saying it had “been run by a bunch of radical lunatics, and we’re getting them out.” The administration had moved to bring the agency under the State Department, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio being named acting administrator.
Among the legal questions surrounding the actions of DOGE is the role of Musk — whom Trump has publicly described as the boss of the cost-cutting initiative, while administration lawyers insist he holds no official role but is merely a “special government employee.”
“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 and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the Appointments Clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality,” Chaung wrote, referring to the constitutional requirement that a president consult the Senate for certain high-level appointments.
Chuang then rejected arguments that Musk had merely advised the decision to scrap USAID.
“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 surmised.
“This record must be considered alongside the fact that Musk appears to have been involved in the shutdown of CFPB [Consumer Financial Protection Bureau] headquarters as well,” Chuang stressed in his opinion.
“And the evidence that shows or strongly suggests that Musk and DOGE, despite their allegedly advisory roles, have taken other unilateral actions without any apparent authorization from agency officials.”
Musk later ripped into the order by amplifying an X post from pundit Charlie Kirk that claimed “the only two clauses of the left’s constitution were ‘thou shalt have open borders’ and ‘All American money will be sent abroad.'”
“Indeed,” Musk said while reposting Kirk’s broadside to his 220 million X followers.
The Post reached out to the White House for comment.
“Today’s decision is an important victory against Elon Musk and his DOGE attack on USAID, the United States’ government, and the Constitution,” said Norm Eisen, executive chair of State Democracy Defenders Fund, which represented the plaintiffs.
“This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE’s illegality.”
