On Tuesday, a federal judge in Maryland found Musk and DOGE’s work to largely dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development “likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways.”
U.S. District Judge Theodore D. Chuang said “the power to act to eliminate federal agencies resides exclusively with Congress” and that DOGE’s work to dismantle USAID violates the separation of powers laid out in the Constitution.
The government argued that Musk is merely an adviser to the president and was not responsible for efforts to slash the workforce and shutter USAID headquarters.
The judge, however, pointed to numerous posts of Musk’s on his X platform where he boasted he was responsible, including a Feb. 3 tweet where he wrote, “We spent the weekend feeding USAID to the wood chipper. Could have gone to some great parties. Did that instead.”
Chuang issued a preliminary injunction ordering the agency to take steps to reopen the agency’s headquarters and to restore access to email, payment, security notification and other electronic systems for all USAID employees and contractors.
Chuang also barred DOGE from sharing the personal information of USAID staffers outside of the agency, citing the Musk team’s “extremely troubling lack of respect for security clearance requirements and agency rules relating to access to sensitive data.”
DOGE filed an appeal of Chuang’s order early Friday.
Judge says she is ‘very offended’ by DOGE’s actions but declines a restraining order
Not every plaintiff that sued DOGE this week was successful in court.
The U.S. Institute of Peace, a nonprofit funded by Congress and dedicated to conflict resolution, went to D.C. federal court seeking an emergency restraining order alleging that DOGE had used a “takeover by force” of its headquarters and was attempting to shut it down.
U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell questioned DOGE’s methods at a Wednesday hearing. “I am very offended by how DOGE has operated at the institute and treated American citizens trying to do a job that they were statutorily tasked to do,” Howell said, but she declined to sign the restraining order, saying the plaintiffs had not met the necessary requirements.
The Justice Department had contended the administration “acted in accordance with all laws” and had properly removed the institute’s top officials.
Though Howell ruled in the government’s favor, the Justice Department moved Friday to remove her from another case involving the president.
Howell signed off on a restraining order barring portions of Trump’s executive order punishing Perkins Coie, a law firm that’s done high-profile work for Democrats. The order suspended employees’ security clearances and barred them from federal buildings.
“It sends chills down my spine when you say that if the president in his view has the position that an individual, or an entity, or a company is operating a way that is not in the nation’s interest, he can issue an executive order like this,” Howell said at a hearing last week, calling it “a pretty extraordinary power for the president to exercise.”
The DOJ filing said the judge “has repeatedly demonstrated partiality against and animus towards the President” over the years, and cited her having signed off on parts of special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into Trump as one of the reasons she should recuse herself.
