A federal judge in Maryland has issued a preliminary injunction that effectively blocks billionaire Elon Musk and the U.S. DOGE Service from making any further attempts to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This ruling also mandates that measures be implemented to facilitate the agency's reoccupation of its headquarters within the Ronald Reagan building in Washington, D.C., should a final ruling favor the plaintiffs. U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang made this decision in federal court, marking a significant setback for the Trump administration’s efforts to drastically downsize the federal government.
The lawsuit was filed by the State Democracy Defenders Fund (SDDF) on behalf of over two dozen USAID workers, referred to in the court documents as Plaintiffs J. Does 1-26. The plaintiffs argue that Musk has taken on unprecedented authority over federal agencies that should only be exercised by individuals nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate as “Officers of the United States.” This concern is rooted in the framers' intentions of the Constitution, which aimed to prevent favoritism and ensure that only qualified individuals hold significant governmental power.
The complaint alleges that Musk and his DOGE team have engaged in a “predictable and reckless slash-and-burn pattern” by attempting to access essential government operation systems, an act that contravenes privacy and security laws. According to the allegations, individuals who lack the necessary security clearance should not be able to access these systems. Furthermore, it is claimed that when faced with resistance from agency officers or staff, members of the DOGE team resort to threats—amplified through Musk's social media platform, X—or take steps to ensure those officials are placed on administrative leave or removed entirely.
In response to these claims, lawyers from the Justice Department representing Musk and DOGE argue that they do not hold formal authority over USAID or other federal agencies. They contend that actions such as halting spending and placing employees on administrative leave are the responsibility of USAID’s own leadership, not Musk. The DOJ maintains that Musk, as a Senior Advisor, possesses no greater authority than other senior White House advisors and lacks the formal power to make governmental decisions independently.
Judge Chuang's ruling follows a similar case in Washington, where U.S. District Judge Tanya S. Chutkan declined to block Musk from accessing government data systems or participating in worker layoffs. Judge Chutkan acknowledged legitimate questions regarding Musk’s authority but determined there was insufficient evidence of immediate legal harm to justify a temporary restraining order. This earlier case was initiated by 14 Democratic states challenging Musk's actions.
Pursuant to President Trump’s directives, Musk was appointed as the head of DOGE, an office intended to scrutinize the federal bureaucracy for potential spending cuts. Since his appointment, Musk has sought to exert extensive control over the U.S. government’s operations, placing trusted associates in key positions across various agencies, including the Office of Personnel Management, which is responsible for managing federal human resources.
This ongoing legal battle highlights the complexities surrounding federal authority and the appropriate checks and balances designed to prevent any individual, regardless of their wealth or influence, from wielding excessive power over government operations. As the case unfolds, its implications for the future of federal governance and the role of private individuals in public office remain to be seen.
