Judge: Musk and Trump’s effort to disband USAID is likely unconstitutional

A federal judge in Maryland on Tuesday issued a preliminary injunction ordering the Trump administration to reinstate electronic system access to workers at the U.S. Agency for International Development who had been fired or put on leave in recent weeks, finding that President Trump and Elon Musk likely violated the separation of powers and Appointments Clause of the Constitution.

A cadre of 26 anonymous current and former USAID employees and personal services contractors sued Elon Musk and the so-called Department of Government Efficiency, arguing that Musk’s authority to order the closure of USAID and make sweeping changes across other federal agencies violates the Appointments Clause, and that the Trump administration’s efforts to shutter USAID violated the constitutional separation of powers, given that Congress established the agency in statute in the 1990s.

In a nearly 70-page decision, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang, an Obama appointee, ruled that despite the administration’s protestations that Amy Gleason is acting U.S. DOGE Service administrator, for all intents and purposes, Musk leads the agency. The White House has claimed that Musk is a special government employee with the official title of a White House senior advisor.

“At this preliminary stage, the record demonstrates that, at least during the time period relevant to this motion, Musk was, at a minimum, likely the official performing the duties and functions of the USDS administrator,” Chuang wrote. “Even if viewed from the standpoint of the senior advisor position that he occupies on paper, the record of his activities to date establishes that his role has been and will continue to be as the leader of DOGE, with the same duties and degree of continuity as if he were formally in that position.”

Chuang ordered the Trump administration to reinstate employees and personal services contractors’ access to email, payment, security and other systems, even to those on administrative leave. Though it seemingly stops short of ordering the reinstatement of those already terminated, the order blocks DOGE or the Trump administration from furthering their efforts to close the agency and instructs officials to develop a plan to reopen the agency’s Washington, D.C. headquarters.

The injunction also bars DOGE employees from divulging personally identifiable information about employees or contractors, after multiple personal service contractors reported their contact information had been posted online.

Chuang also rebuffed the administration’s argument that a letter sent by Secretary of State and acting USAID Administrator Marco Rubio on Feb. 3 informing Congress of its plans to reorganize the agency satisfied the legal requirement that the administration consult Congress before making changes to USAID.

“The actions to shut down USAID headquarters and its website occurred between January 31 and the morning of February 3, before or as the letter was sent, and thus involved the unauthorized expenditure of funds before consultation, and without the required advanced notice,” he wrote. “The letter also did not constitute ‘prior consultation’ under the fiscal 2024 Appropriations Act because it was not a ‘pre-decisional engagement’ that provided the Appropriations committees with ‘a meaningful opportunity to provide facts and opinions, in advance of any public announcement,’ relating to the use of funds or the decisions to be taken.”

The judge looked favorably on the irreparable harms alleged by the plaintiffs, as at least one of the suing employees, who is stationed in Central America, still lacks access to payments for their residence and utilities, contradicting assurances administration officials gave U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols that led in part to his denial of a preliminary injunction in a case brought by federal employee unions and Oxfam America.

And he took the unusual step of agreeing that employees who have been terminated or placed on leave would suffer lasting reputational harms if the agency is shuttered, citing Trump and Musk’s repeated statements maligning USAID and its workforce. One of the suit’s plaintiffs said their family members are fielding questions about “liberal corruption” at the agency, while another, who is stationed in the Middle East, said he has already begun to see a backlash against the agency’s work among local residents.

“On February 2, as USAID headquarters was being shut down, Musk stated on X that USAID is ‘evil’ and in another post that has been viewed at least 33.2 million times, that ‘USAID is a criminal organization,’” Chuang wrote. “The next day, Musk also publicly stated in a lengthy discussion on X that USAID was not ‘an apple with a worm in it’ but was instead ‘just a ball of worms’ that is ‘hopeless’ and ‘beyond repair’ to the point that ‘you’ve got to basically get rid of the whole thing ... Where such a prominent member of the executive branch has publicly described plaintiffs’ place of employment in these ways on such a large media platform, and in a way that effectively characterizes it ... as a criminal enterprise from top to bottom, the likely harm to the reputation of personnel who worked there is of a different order of magnitude.”