Judge says Musk and DOGE ‘likely violated' constitution in USAID shutdown
A federal district judge in Maryland has found that Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) appear to have breached the United States Constitution through their efforts to dismantle an agency dedicated to distributing foreign aid.
Judge Theodore Chuang issued the preliminary ruling on Tuesday, in response to a complaint filed by 26 employees and contractors for the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
'The Court finds that 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 wrote in his decision.
Not only were the plaintiffs harmed, he added, but the 'public interest' was also.
DOGE and Musk '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', Chuang said.
As a result of that finding, the judge approved a temporary injunction that would prevent DOGE and Musk from continuing with USAID-related staff cuts, contract cancellations, building closures and the destruction of USAID materials.
'The restrictions will assist in maintaining the status quo so as to delay a premature, final shutdown of USAID,' Chuang wrote.
It was a significant blow to Musk, whose role in the government has been ambiguous – but who has wielded significant power due to his close relationship with US President Donald Trump.
A tech billionaire and one of the wealthiest men in the world, Musk is considered a 'special government employee', a temporary role often given to outside advisers.
In that role, however, he has led DOGE in a vast campaign to restructure the federal government, through downsizing its workforce, ending contracts and attempting to shutter entire agencies.
USAID was one of the first in DOGE's crosshairs. Upon taking office for a second term on January 20, Trump issued a presidential order calling for a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid – a central part of USAID's work.
Established in 1961 by an act of Congress, USAID had become the US's primary arm for distributing foreign assistance abroad.
But under Trump's order, only aid that aligned with the president's foreign policy would be allowed to continue.
Musk became the face of the campaign to close USAID entirely. 'USAID is a criminal organization,' he wrote on his social media platform X on February 2, without offering proof. 'Time for it to die.'
Later that day, Musk posted another message on X: 'We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could [have] gone to some great parties. Did that instead.'
By the end of February, the agency's headquarters in Washington, DC, was effectively closed, with employees given only 15 minutes to collect their belongings. An estimated 1,600 workers were fired, and another 4,700 were put on leave.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio eventually announced that 83 percent of all USAID contracts had been cancelled.
To justify the cuts across government, Musk and Trump have repeatedly accused departments and agencies of having perpetrated 'waste' and 'fraud', without offering proof.
Given that USAID was established as an independent agency under Congress's Foreign Assistance Act, Judge Chuang ruled that Musk's actions 'likely violates the constitutional principle of Separation of Powers'.
As part of Tuesday's injunction, Chuang required DOGE to restore USAID employees' access to electronic systems and called for the department to restore any deleted emails.
Trump allies, however, quickly slammed Chuang – an appointee of former President Barack Obama – for his temporary injunction.
wrote in a one-word reply.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Jazeera
4 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
US lawmakers condemn Trump for ‘unconstitutional' attack on Iran
US lawmakers condemn Trump for 'unconstitutional' attack on Iran NewsFeed US lawmakers and American citizens have condemned what they call President Donald Trump's 'unconstitutional' decision to bomb Iran without Congressional approval. Many criticised the US military intervention as a betrayal of Trump's 'America First' platform that got him re-elected. Video Duration 03 minutes 44 seconds 03:44 Video Duration 01 minutes 05 seconds 01:05 Video Duration 01 minutes 31 seconds 01:31 Video Duration 00 minutes 55 seconds 00:55 Video Duration 01 minutes 19 seconds 01:19 Video Duration 00 minutes 25 seconds 00:25
Al Jazeera
7 hours ago
- Al Jazeera
‘Patently illegal': Critics dispute legality of Trump's Iran strikes
Washington, DC – As United States President Donald Trump lauded what he called the 'spectacular military success' of the strikes he authorised against Iran, Democrats were quick to accuse him of overstepping his authority. Numerous critics accused Trump late on Saturday of violating the US Constitution by launching military attacks against Iran's nuclear sites without the approval of Congress. 'Trump said he would end wars; now he has dragged America into one,' Senator Christopher Van Hollen Junior said in a statement. 'His actions are a clear violation of our Constitution – ignoring the requirement that only the Congress has the authority to declare war.' In the lead up to the US attacks, legislators from both main parties have pushed measures to compel Trump to approach Congress before launching any strikes. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to declare war or authorise the use of force for specific purposes. Trump's 'Make America Great Again' (MAGA) base has also been vehement in its opposition to the US joining Israel's war. It has pointed out that Trump won the election on the promise not to commit Washington to yet another war in the Middle East. They want Trump to focus on domestic issues, particularly the economy. 'Grounds for impeachment' Lawmakers' authority over the military was further enshrined in the War Powers Resolution of 1973, which curbed the president's war-making powers. Progressive Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said Trump violated the constitution and the War Powers Resolution. 'He has impulsively risked launching a war that may ensnare us for generations. It is absolutely and clearly grounds for impeachment,' she said. The president is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, so he can order attacks, but his decisions must be within the guidelines of what is authorised by Congress. However, the president can order the military in the case of a 'sudden attack' or to respond to emergencies. Several Democrats were quick to note that Iran's nuclear facilities, which have been operating for years, did not pose an imminent threat to the US. The US intelligence community confirmed in an assessment in March that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon. Trump has increasingly relied on executive powers in governing domestically, and now he appears to be sidelining Congress in his foreign policy. But with Republicans in control of the Senate and the House of Representatives, lawmakers have few tools to influence his military decision. Impeachment is almost out of the question. President Trump sending U.S. troops to bomb Iran without the consent of Congress is a blatant violation of our Constitution. — Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib (@RepRashida) June 22, 2025 No legal justification for strikes Lawmakers have introduced bills under the War Powers Resolution to ban attacks on Iran without the approval of Congress, but Trump is likely to veto the proposals if they pass. Congress could overturn the veto with two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate, but Trump's strikes have enough support to make that outcome unlikely. The US president has not provided a legal justification for the strikes, but he is likely to argue that he was responding to an urgent situation or cite an existing military authorisation. In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks in 2001, Congress passed a law allowing then-President George W Bush to launch what would become the global 'war on terror'. Millions of people have been killed and societies devastated due to the US wars on Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, among others, waged as part of the so-called 'war on terror'. It has also cost trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of US soldiers. In 2002, lawmakers approved another authorisation to allow the invasion of Iraq a year later. These laws, known as the Authorisation for Use of Military Force (AUMF), remain in place, and previous presidents have invoked them to justify attacks that were not specifically approved by Congress. Brian Finucane, a senior adviser with the US programme of the International Crisis Group and former State Department lawyer, said the attack on Iran is 'patently illegal'. 'Even under the prevailing executive branch doctrine, this is likely to constitute 'war' requiring congressional authorization,' he wrote in a social media post. Statement from Rep. Ilhan Omar on U.S. Bombing of Iran: 'The strikes on Iran, ordered by President Trump and executed without congressional authorization, mark a dangerous and reckless escalation of an already volatile conflict in the Middle East. 'Military strikes will not… — Rep. Ilhan Omar (@Ilhan) June 22, 2025 Key progressive Senator Bernie Sanders was speaking at a rally in Oklahoma when Trump announced the attack. As Sanders told the crowd about the US strikes, attendees started chanting: 'No more war!' 'It is so grossly unconstitutional,' he said. 'All of you know that the only entity that can take this country to war is the US Congress; the president does not have that right.' Former Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said lawmakers will be 'demanding answers' from the administration. 'Tonight, the President ignored the Constitution by unilaterally engaging our military without Congressional authorization,' she said in a social media post.
Qatar Tribune
20 hours ago
- Qatar Tribune
Trump extends TikTok ban deadline for 3rd time
Agencies President Donald Trump signed an executive order on Thursday extending TikTok's operations in the U.S. for another 90 days, granting his administration additional time to negotiate a deal to transfer the social media platform into American ownership. Trump disclosed the executive order on the Truth Social platform Thursday morning. 'As he has said many times, President Trump does not want TikTok to go dark. This extension will last 90 days, which the administration will spend working to ensure this deal is closed so that the American people can continue to use TikTok with the assurance that their data is safe and secure,' White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement on Tuesday. It is the third time Trump has extended the deadline. The first one was through an executive order on Jan. 20, his first day in office, after the platform went dark briefly when a national ban – approved by Congress and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court – took effect. The second was in April, when White House officials believed they were nearing a deal to spin off TikTok into a new company with U.S. ownership that fell apart after China backed out following Trump's tariff announcement. It is not clear how many times Trump can – or will – keep extending the ban as the government continues to try to negotiate a deal for TikTok, which is owned by China's ByteDance. While there is no clear legal basis for the extensions, so far there have been no legal challenges to fight them. Trump has amassed more than 15 million followers on TikTok since he joined last year, and he has credited the trendsetting platform with helping him gain traction among young voters. He said in January that he has a 'warm spot for TikTok.' TikTok praised Trump for signing an extension Thursday. 'We are grateful for President Trump's leadership and support in ensuring that TikTok continues to be available for more than 170 million American users and 7.5 million U.S. businesses that rely on the platform as we continue to work with Vice President Vance's Office,' the company said in a statement. As the extensions continue, it appears less and less likely that TikTok will be banned in the U.S. any time soon. The decision to keep TikTok alive through an executive order has received some scrutiny, but it has not faced a legal challenge in court – unlike many of Trump's other executive orders. Jeremy Goldman, analyst at Emarketer, called TikTok's U.S situation a 'deadline purgatory.' The whole thing 'is starting to feel less like a ticking clock and more like a looped ringtone. This political Groundhog Day is starting to resemble the debt ceiling drama: a recurring threat with no real resolution.' That's not stopping TikTok from pushing forward with its platform, Forrester analyst Kelsey Chickering says. 'TikTok's behavior also indicates they're confident in their future, as they rolled out new AI video tools at Cannes this week,' Chickering notes. 'Smaller players, like Snap, will try to steal share during this 'uncertain time,' but they will not succeed because this next round for TikTok isn't uncertain at all.'
