Doge and Musk’s USAID closure may violate the U.S. Constitution

The U.S. federal judge ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) may have “break the Constitution in many ways.” While this doesn’t mean that USDA is backing up and running, the order does temporarily stop the plans of Elon Musk’s head.

In a 68-page comment filed in a Maryland court Tuesday, Theodore Chuang approved a preliminary injunction to prevent Doge from further demolishing USAID. USAID is an important foreign aid organization that provides humanitarian assistance to other countries on behalf of the U.S. government, including disaster and poverty relief. Unfortunately, billionaire Musk apparently believed that this waste wasted, shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development, reportedly reduced the workforce by more than 10,000 to 611, and abruptly cut billions of dollars in foreign aid shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration.

The temporary ban did not restore USAID to what was before Doge’s intervention. However, this does mean that Doge can no longer fire USAID employees, end contracts or grants, or close their offices and IT systems. The court further ordered Doge to restore access to all current USAID employees to their email, payments, security and other electronic systems and to restore deleted emails.

Why is Doge closing USAID possible unconstitutional?

The case was filed by 26 U.S.A.I.D. employees and contractors, some of which noted that when Doge shut down U.S.A.I.D. system, there was no significant security software or basic living expenses funds trapped overseas. In his ruling, Chuang agreed to the plaintiff’s assessment that Musk and Barrier had violated the U.S. Constitution several times and found that their case was likely to succeed.

Specifically, the plaintiff claimed that the constitution’s appointment clause was violated because Musk was not appointed as a U.S. official in the United States. The defense dismissed this, claiming that Musk was acting only in consulting capacity, not the person who actually named it. Chuang found this to be convincing.

“deny [this claim] Based on paper alone, Musk has no formal legal authority, and even if he actually exercises important authority in government affairs, it will open the door to the final statistics of dating clauses. ”

“Musk’s public statement and post on X, he repeatedly said that Doge will take action, and shortly thereafter, such actions demonstrated his firm control over Doge… [T]His literature supports the conclusion that Musk retained important authority for officers without being properly appointed as a U.S. official…”

The plaintiff further argued that Musk and the threshold violated the separation of powers because the United States Agency for International Development is a federal agency that can only be created or repealed by Congress. As a result, Duger’s closure of the USDA allegedly exceeded the executive authority to embezzle the legislative branch. Chuang also believes that this argument is strong.

“Congress passed regulations that clearly state that the United States Agency for International Development is an independent body that will not be repealed or reorganized without Congress’ approval,” Chuang said.[Musk and DOGE’s] The current actions to demolish the United States Agency for International Development violate the separation of powers because they violate the Congressional authority associated with the establishment of institutions. ”

Foreseeable, Musk quickly condemned the ruling, questioned Zhong’s integrity, and shared and agreed with the post claiming a “judicial coup.” He did not specifically address any legal and factual issues raised in the case.

The White House also alleged the verdict’s political motivation, confirming that it would appeal the decision. White House spokesman Anna Kelly appears to have adopted a “no” approach, accusing Chuang of violating his own separation and claiming that “rogue judges are subverting the will of the American people in an attempt to prevent President Trump from making a agenda.” Under U.S. law, the judiciary has the right to evaluate the constitutional effectiveness of federal law and the actions of the executive branch.