Judge orders reinstatement of USAID functions, says DOGE effort to shutter agency likely unconstitutional

Federal Judge Rules Trump Administration’s Shutdown of USAID Likely Unconstitutional

A federal judge in Maryland has delivered a significant blow to the Trump administration’s efforts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), ruling that the administration’s actions were likely unconstitutional. U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, who was appointed by former President Barack Obama in 2014, issued a preliminary injunction blocking the administration from further attempts to shut down the agency. Chuang concluded that the administration’s actions, including the permanent closure of USAID headquarters without proper congressional approval, violated the U.S. Constitution in multiple ways. The judge emphasized that these actions not only harmed the plaintiffs in the case but also undermined the constitutional authority of Congress to decide the fate of agencies it creates. This ruling marks a major setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to curtail USAID’s operations and functions.

The Injunction and Its Implications

Judge Chuang’s ruling goes beyond just blocking the shutdown of USAID; it also restores email and computer access to all USAID employees, including those who were placed on administrative leave. The judge explicitly prohibited the administration from making any further cuts to the agency, effectively halting the Trump administration’s plans to reduce USAID’s workforce and operations. The lawsuit was brought by current and former employees and contractors of USAID, who argued that the administration’s actions were unlawful and harmful to the agency’s mission. Chuang’s decision is significant not only for its immediate impact on USAID but also for its broader implications on the separation of powers and the role of the executive branch in managing agencies established by Congress. The ruling underscores the importance of constitutional checks and balances, particularly ininstances where the executive branch oversteps its authority.

SCOTUS Weighs In on Frozen USAID Payments

In a related development, the U.S. Supreme Court recently addressed another aspect of the Trump administration’s handling of USAID funds. The court rejected the administration’s request to extend a freeze on nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds that had been appropriated by Congress. The ruling, which was decided by a 5-4 vote, remanded the case back to the lower court for further proceedings. This decision came after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who was appointed by President Joe Biden, ruled that the administration’s decision to impound the funds was likely unconstitutional. Judge Ali stated that the executive branch had overstepped its authority by unilaterally deciding not to spend funds that had been appropriated by Congress for foreign aid. He emphasized that Congress, not the executive, has the sole authority to determine whether and how appropriated funds should be spent. This ruling is another rebuke to the Trump administration’s attempts to unilaterally control the flow of federal funds.

The Trump Administration’s Rationale and Criticisms

The Trump administration has long been critical of USAID and foreign aid in general, with former President Donald Trump often characterizing such spending as wasteful and ineffective. The administration argued that USAID’s programs do not adequately benefit American taxpayers and even referred to the agency’s leadership as "radical lunatics." Republicans in Congress have largely echoed these sentiments, with many calling for USAID to be folded into the State Department or for its funding to be significantly reduced. They argue that the agency’s programs often promote liberal agendas and lack proper oversight, pointing to specific examples of questionable spending, such as $900,000 allocated to a "Gaza-based terror charity" and $1.5 million spent on promoting diversity and inclusion in Serbia. These criticisms have been central to the administration’s efforts to slash USAID’s budget and eliminate thousands of contract awards.

Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy and Aid Programs

The Trump administration’s efforts to curtail USAID’s operations have had far-reaching implications for U.S. foreign policy and international aid programs. According to a State Department memo, the administration planned to eliminate nearly 5,800 of 6,200 multi-year USAID contract awards, resulting in a cut of $54 billion. Additionally, the administration sought to eliminate 4,100 of 9,100 State Department grants, totaling $4.4 billion in cuts. These reductions would have significantly impacted USAID’s ability to carry out its mission of providing humanitarian assistance, supporting global health initiatives, and promoting economic development in developing countries. Democrats and foreign policy experts have argued that these cuts would undermine U.S. interests abroad by destabilizing key regions and weakening America’s influence on the global stage. They contend that USAID’s work is critical to advancing U.S. foreign policy goals, including promoting democracy, combating extremism, and addressing global health crises.

Conclusion: A Rebuke to Executive Overreach

The rulings by Judges Chuang and Ali, along with the Supreme Court’s decision, collectively represent a significant rebuke to the Trump administration’s efforts to unilaterally reshape the federal bureaucracy and disregard congressional authority. These decisions affirm the constitutional principle of the separation of powers and reinforce the importance of checks and balances in preventing executive overreach. By restoring USAID’s functions and ordering the release of frozen funds, the judiciary has ensured that Congress’s role in appropriating and overseeing federal expenditures is upheld. The legal battles over USAID’s future are far from over, as the Trump administration is likely to appeal these rulings to higher courts, potentially setting the stage for a Supreme Court showdown. For now, however, the rulings serve as a reminder of the enduring importance of constitutional safeguards and the judiciary’s role in protecting them.