A federal judge in Maryland has ruled that the actions taken by Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) “likely violated the Constitution in multiple ways.” The judge issued a preliminary injunction blocking further cuts to the agency without express authorization from an appropriate official, also ordering that employees placed on leave regain access to agency systems.
The ruling is a significant obstacle to the administration’s broader effort to reduce the federal workforce and shrink the size of government. According to the judge’s opinion, the evidence suggests that Musk was not merely an advisor but made direct decisions regarding the agency’s shutdown, including closing its headquarters and disabling its website.
The case was initiated in response to a lawsuit filed on behalf of USAID employees and contractors, which argued that Musk had been granted unprecedented power without being nominated or confirmed by the Senate. The legal complaint alleged that his authority extended to cutting off access to congressionally approved funds, confidential data, and entire agencies, raising serious constitutional concerns under the Appointments Clause.
Government officials defended the actions, arguing that Musk was simply an advisor to the administration and that all decisions were made by agency leadership. However, the court pointed to numerous instances where both Musk and administration officials contradicted this notion. The judge warned that allowing advisors to exercise significant authority without official appointment would render the Appointments Clause meaningless.
In addition to concerns about the Appointments Clause, the judge found that the shutdown of USAID likely violated the separation of powers doctrine. The ruling emphasized that no law grants the executive branch the power to unilaterally dissolve a federal agency. The judge stated that the public’s elected representatives in Congress have the authority to make such decisions, and that the administration’s actions had undermined this constitutional framework.
The decision was praised as a crucial step in holding those responsible accountable and protecting the stability of the federal government. The case is seen as a milestone in the ongoing legal battle over the administration’s restructuring efforts.
