The Washington Inquirer EditorA federal judge has ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) rapid dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) likely violates the U.S. Constitution, delivering a significant rebuke to the Trump administration’s aggressive cost-cutting measures led by Elon Musk.
In a detailed 68-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ordered DOGE to halt further cuts and restore electronic access for USAID employees, arguing that the unilateral shutdown infringed on congressional authority and constitutional norms.
The decision marks a pivotal moment in the clash between executive overreach and judicial oversight, spotlighting the controversial role of Musk’s DOGE in reshaping the federal government. This article explores the ruling, its context, and its broader implications for U.S. governance and foreign aid.
The legal bombshell dropped on March 18, 2025, when Judge Chuang, an Obama appointee based in Maryland, issued his preliminary injunction.
The ruling stemmed from a lawsuit filed by over two dozen current and former USAID employees and contractors, who argued that DOGE’s actions—executed with Musk at the helm—lacked legal grounding. Since Trump’s return to the White House in January,
DOGE had slashed over 80% of USAID’s programs and staff, effectively shuttering an agency created by Congress in 1961 to oversee U.S. foreign aid. The judge’s order, while not fully reversing the cuts, seeks to preserve what remains of USAID amid a broader administration push to slash federal spending.
The Rise of DOGE and USAID’s Fall
DOGE, an informal task force spearheaded by Musk, emerged as a cornerstone of Trump’s second-term agenda to root out perceived waste in government. USAID, with its $50 billion annual budget and global humanitarian footprint, became an early target.
CNN reports that within weeks of Trump’s inauguration, DOGE had frozen payments, terminated contracts, and forced thousands of USAID staff onto leave or out of jobs entirely. By February, the agency’s headquarters in Washington, D.C., stood nearly empty, its website reduced to a single page, and its mission to support impoverished nations left in disarray.
The New York Times detailed how Musk, a billionaire unconfirmed by the Senate, took direct control, posting on X in early February that he had “spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper.” This hands-on role fueled the lawsuit’s core claim: Musk and DOGE were acting as de facto federal officers without constitutional authority, bypassing Congress’s power to create and dissolve agencies. Fox News noted Trump’s vocal support, with the president telling Laura Ingraham, “We’re cutting waste, fraud, and abuse—USAID had to go.” Yet, the speed and scale of the dismantling raised red flags, prompting judicial intervention.
Judge Says DOGE’s Dismantling of USAID Likely Unconstitutional: The Ruling
The subheading mirrors the central thrust of Chuang’s decision: DOGE’s dismantling of USAID likely unconstitutional. In his ruling, the judge identified multiple violations, chief among them the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, which requires Senate confirmation for officers wielding significant authority. Chuang pointed to Musk’s public statements and DOGE’s actions—like sending layoff notices from a DOGE email—as evidence of overreach. “Musk has specifically expressed his desire to shut down USAID and has taken responsibility for the actions taken to do so,” the judge wrote, per CNN, rejecting the administration’s claim that Musk was merely an adviser.
The ruling also leaned on separation of powers principles. USAID, established under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, is a congressional creation, and Chuang argued that only Congress—not the executive branch—can eliminate it. “There is no statute that authorizes the Executive Branch to shut down USAID,” he stated, as reported by the New York Times. The judge ordered DOGE to restore email, payment systems, and other electronic access for USAID’s remaining staff, though he stopped short of reversing firings or fully reviving the agency, leaving its future uncertain.
The Lawsuit: Voices of the Displaced
The plaintiffs—26 anonymous USAID employees and contractors—painted a dire picture of DOGE’s impact. NBC News reported their claims of lost access to critical systems, including security notifications for staff in high-risk areas abroad, and unpaid reimbursements for travel and health insurance. “They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel,” said Norm Eisen, executive chair of the State Democracy Defenders Fund backing the suit, in a statement echoed across outlets. The lawsuit argued that DOGE’s actions not only harmed them personally but undermined the public interest by sidelining Congress.
The human toll was palpable. BBC coverage featured images of USAID workers collecting belongings from the shuttered Ronald Reagan Building headquarters on February 28, some visibly emotional after decades of service. Oxfam America’s Abby Maxman called the ruling a “welcome reprieve” but pressed for full reinstatement, warning of “life or death consequences” for millions worldwide as aid programs stalled. The plaintiffs’ victory, while partial, spotlighted the chaos wrought by DOGE’s blitzkrieg approach.
Trump and Musk: A Partnership Under Scrutiny
The ruling thrust Trump and Musk’s partnership into the crosshairs. Trump has repeatedly praised Musk’s leadership of DOGE, from press conferences to his March 4 address to Congress, as noted by Chuang. Yet, the administration’s legal defense—that USAID officials, not Musk, drove the cuts—crumbled under evidence of Musk’s direct involvement. The New York Times highlighted his X posts, like one claiming DOGE could “act” at his behest, as damning proof of his role. This contradiction fueled Chuang’s finding that Musk acted as an unappointed officer, a breach of constitutional norms.
Fox News captured Trump’s defiance, with the president vowing to appeal on The Ingraham Angle: “We have rogue judges destroying our country—I guarantee you we’ll fight this.” The White House echoed this, with spokesperson Anna Kelly decrying “rogue judges subverting the will of the American people.” But the ruling’s legal grounding—rooted in appointments and congressional authority—poses a formidable hurdle, testing Trump’s ability to wield executive power unchecked.
Global Fallout: Aid in Limbo
USAID’s dismantling has reverberated globally. BBC reported on stalled humanitarian efforts, with food and medical aid shipments stuck in transit as contracts evaporated. In nations like Yemen and Haiti, where USAID was a lifeline, local leaders expressed alarm. The New York Times cited a State Department figure that 83% of USAID’s programs were axed, leaving a skeleton crew of a few hundred staff—a far cry from its peak of thousands. Critics, including Oxfam, warned of destabilizing fragile regions, undermining U.S. soft power at a time of rising geopolitical tension.
European allies voiced dismay, per BBC, with France and Germany urging stronger support for Ukraine—another USAID beneficiary—amid its war with Russia. The ruling’s limited scope, however, leaves these programs in limbo, as Chuang’s order restores access but not funding or staff. Reuters suggested the decision could prompt a reevaluation of DOGE’s broader cuts, though the administration’s appeal may delay any resolution.
Constitutional Questions: A Precedent in the Making?
Chuang’s ruling raises thorny constitutional questions. The Appointments Clause argument hinges on Musk’s lack of Senate confirmation, a novel challenge to an administration reliant on high-profile outsiders. NBC News noted its potential to “chart the way” for other courts eyeing DOGE’s moves against agencies like the Department of Agriculture. The separation of powers issue—Congress’s sole right to dismantle its creations—strikes at the heart of Trump’s deregulatory agenda, which has leaned heavily on executive action.
Legal experts offered mixed views. CNN quoted Columbia Law’s Richard Briffault, who argued the president can’t “wave away” an agency without Congress, aligning with Chuang’s stance. Fox News countered with a conservative scholar suggesting executive discretion in “wasteful” agencies, though admitting USAID’s statutory basis complicates that view. The ruling’s preliminary nature leaves room for appeal, potentially landing it before a Supreme Court with a 6-3 conservative tilt—three justices appointed by Trump himself.
Public and Political Reactions
Reactions split along predictable lines. Posts on X, reflecting public sentiment, ranged from cheers for judicial checks to accusations of “activist judges” thwarting Trump’s mandate. Fox News amplified the latter, with Laura Ingraham framing it as a liberal plot. Democrats, like Senator Chris Murphy, hailed it as a defense of democracy, per NBC News, while Republicans vowed to fight back. A broader poll cited by the New York Times showed 54% disapproving of Trump’s early-term performance, hinting at political risk if the USAID saga drags on.
The White House’s appeal promise signals a protracted battle. Reuters reported Trump’s team eyeing a fast-tracked Supreme Court review, leveraging his judicial legacy. For now, Chuang’s injunction holds, a rare brake on DOGE’s momentum as it targets other agencies like the U.S. Institute of Peace.
The Road Ahead: Uncertainty Looms
USAID’s fate remains unclear. The ruling halts further cuts but can’t undo months of damage—staff gone, contracts voided, aid stalled. BBC suggested a congressional push to restore funding, though GOP control of the House dims that prospect. Musk, silent on X since the decision, faces scrutiny over his DOGE role, with some speculating he’ll pivot to less contentious targets. Trump’s next move—appeal or defiance—will shape the narrative of his second term.
For now, Chuang’s stand marks a judicial line in the sand, testing the limits of executive power in an era of bold reform. Whether it holds or crumbles, the USAID saga underscores a nation grappling with its global role, its constitutional checks, and the outsized influence of figures like Musk in its governance.
