10
Loading video...
By Sonam Sheth
Evening Politics Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
A federal judge ruled on Tuesday that Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) likely violated the Constitution "in multiple ways" while dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Newsweek reached out to a representative for DOGE for comment via email.
The Context
Musk and DOGE have been hit with a slew of lawsuits since the agency began unilaterally shutting down congressionally approved federal agencies and attempting to fire tens of thousands of federal workers.
Read More on Politics
One of those lawsuits came from 26 federal employees and contractors who sued after DOGE began rapidly dismantling USAID, canceling the vast majority of its overseas work and leaving a skeleton crew of remaining workers.
Their suit accuses Musk and DOGE of violating the Appointments Clause of the Constitution because Musk has not been appointed by the president and is not a Senate-confirmed official.
...
What To Know
On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the defendants' "actions taken to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAID Officer, likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways ..."
Chuang added that their actions "harmed not only Plaintiffs, but also the public interest, because they deprived the public's elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when, and how to close down an agency created by Congress."
The judge said in his ruling that he wants to "delay a premature, final shutdown" of USAID while litigation over DOGE's actions is ongoing.
To that end, Chuang ordered DOGE to reinstate current USAID employees' access to email and other agency systems and blocked DOGE staffers from taking "any actions relating" to USAID without sign-off from an agency official who has legal authority.
The ruling leaves open the possibility, however, that other Trump administration officials—like Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is currently acting as the head of USAID—can make further cuts to the agency.
The White House, meanwhile, has tried to put some distance between Musk and DOGE following the lawsuits challenging the Musk's authority to carry out sweeping cuts across the government in an effort to dramatically shrink the federal bureaucracy.
A White House official said in one court filing last month that Musk is "not an employee of the U.S. DOGE Service or the U.S. DOGE Service Temporary Organization," adding: "Mr. Musk is not the U.S. DOGE Service Administrator."
The Trump administration announced shortly after that Amy Gleason was the acting DOGE administrator—only for President Trump to later say that DOGE is "headed up" by Musk.
What People Are Saying
Norm Eisen, executive chair of State Democracy Defenders Fund, which is one of two groups representing the plaintiffs, told Newsweek in a statement: "Today's decision is an important victory against Elon Musk and his DOGE attack on USAID, the US government and the Constitution. They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people USAID serves but the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE's illegality."
Mimi Marziani, cofounder of Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez, the second group representing the plaintiffs, said in a statement: "Our plaintiffs are regular Americans who have faithfully served our country and the public good but have had their lives turned upside down because Musk wants to play master of the universe. We are proud to stand up for the plaintiffs and the Constitution, which is designed to guard against these very sorts of abuses because our nation depends upon a government for all, not for a few."
Erick-Woods Erickson, a conservative commentator and radio host, in his Substack newsletter: "There's a growing movement among federal judges to make political rulings that blatantly overstep their jurisdiction. While conservative judges have been guilty of this in the past, it's increasingly a common trend among progressive judges ruling against Donald Trump."
What Happens Next
It was not immediately clear whether the Trump administration would appeal Chuang's ruling, though the White House has moved quickly to appeal similar injunctions.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines