In a proceeding scheduled for Wednesday, the Trump administration is poised to present a formidable case for the dissolution of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), claiming it is plagued with instances of “insubordination” that justify its closure. This assertion, detailed in a sworn affidavit by Deputy USAID Administrator Pete Marocco, comes in the midst of legal action taken by two organizations representing federal employees.
Employees of USAID firmly reject the claims of insubordination, arguing that these allegations serve as a pretext for dismantling the agency, which has been a major provider of humanitarian and development aid worldwide for over six decades.
Recent testimonies submitted by USAID employees in support of the lawsuit have unveiled concerning developments within the agency. Among these revelations is a declaration from a staff member who reported that a certain executive from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency had ordered the immediate termination of roughly 200 USAID programs on a recent Monday without proper sanction or procedure.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by President Trump, previously dealt a blow to the administration’s efforts, pausing plans to remove a significant portion of USAID’s workforce from their roles globally. On Wednesday, Judge Nichols will hear arguments from the employee groups as they seek to expand his order which aims to prevent the government from enforcing a move that puts thousands of staffers on administrative leave.
The lawsuit asserts that the administration has already violated the judge’s orders and challenges the legitimacy of the freeze on foreign assistance, reinstating workers who had previously been placed on leave.
Under pressure from both Trump and Musk’s fiscal measures, which target USAID specifically, the agency finds itself facing substantial reductions amid claims of inefficiency that contradict the President’s agenda. The legal documents reveal the administration is leaning on opinions from Vice President JD Vance and others questioning the courts’ ability to limit presidential authority.
Supporters of USAID maintain that the agency’s role in delivering critical aid and development support is vital to U.S. national security. They assert that the administration’s approach to dismantling USAID harms both the workforce and the global population that relies on U.S. assistance for essentials like clean water, medical care, and education.
Karla Gilbride, representing the employee associations, described the situation as a severe dismantling of the agency, emphasizing how the drastic measures taken have severely impacted its thousands of employees and the crucial services they provide.
The American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees contend that Trump does not possess the authority to close USAID without Congressional approval, a sentiment echoed by Democratic lawmakers. Ahead of the Wednesday hearing, Marocco contends in his affidavit that agency staff members have been impeding the administration’s directives to halt funding for programs necessitating thorough reviews.
Marocco claims that the agency’s new leadership felt compelled to place a significant number of USAID employees on paid administrative leave to facilitate an audit of USAID’s operations “faithfully.” However, staffers counter that the funding freeze and other disruptive actions prevented necessary reviews from occurring, arguing that their ability to respond has been systematically undermined by the administration’s actions.
Last week, Judge Nichols also halted an order compelling thousands of overseas personnel facing administrative leave to relocate back to the U.S. on government costs. He noted that this could leave American workers and their families without proper protection and could incur undue hardships.
During the proceedings, Nichols referenced assertions that the administration had restricted some employees’ access to essential government communications systems necessary for their safety. He pointed out the disparity in what administrative leave entails in hostile regions compared to safer environments, reflecting on the personal hardships faced by workers who have spent years living abroad and now confront challenges in relocating.
