WASHINGTON — A recent court ruling has postponed the Trump administration’s initiative to drastically reduce the number of USAID employees working overseas. The ongoing order will remain for at least another week following a nearly three-hour court hearing, where significant focus was placed on the impact the government’s abrupt decisions had on employees in the field.
U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by Trump, has indicated that he will provide a written decision soon on whether the halt to the administration’s plans will be extended. During the hearing, the judge rigorously questioned government representatives about the safety of employees left on leave in high-risk international locations. After a Justice Department attorney failed to deliver detailed safety plans, Nichols asked for formal documentation to be submitted to the court.
Affidavits from USAID staffers previously stationed in Congo highlighted the chaotic abandonment they faced as violence and looting surged in the capital last month. These workers expressed they had to evacuate quickly along with their families, feeling forsaken by the agency during a crisis. The recent freeze on funding and the removal of key USAID officials have left many staff without homes or financial support in Washington, escalating concerns over potential job losses.
The judge’s recent decision represented a significant setback for the administration, which planned to place thousands of USAID workers on leave while permitting only a 30-day period for those overseas to return to the U.S. at taxpayer expense. The order was originally expected to conclude on Thursday, but two federal employee associations urged the judge to extend the stay and lift the foreign aid funding freeze imposed by the Trump administration. This funding freeze has interrupted nearly all U.S.-funded aid and development initiatives globally, according to workers and humanitarian organizations.
In the hearing, Nichols pressed representatives from USAID unions about the implications of halted funding for the agency’s operations. His inquiries delved into the legal standing of the unions, assessing whether they could demonstrate sufficient legal harm to warrant an ongoing block against the administration’s directives. Legal standing is a nuanced issue; it has previously influenced court rulings, as seen when another judge ruled in favor of the Trump administration regarding workforce reductions driven by cost-cutting initiatives linked to Elon Musk.
While the administration and Musk’s strategy, known as the Department of Government Efficiency, have targeted various agencies, they have reportedly inflicted the most damage on USAID. This decision is grounded in claims that the agency’s functions are excessive and misaligned with the president’s goals, though no concrete evidence was provided to support this assertion.
In defense, Deputy USAID Administrator Pete Marocco claimed that instances of “insubordination” hindered the new administration’s ability to review aid programs effectively, necessitating the suspension of most USAID staff. However, employees countered that they have been diligently attempting to implement what they described as obscure and conflicting directives, often originating from individuals linked to Musk or other external sources.
Supporters of the agency communicated to Democratic senators earlier this week that the current shutdown, along with other significant administrative actions—such as revoking USAID’s lease on its Washington office—seemingly aims to dismantle the agency before any legislative or judicial intervention can occur. The employee organizations and Democratic lawmakers contend that without explicit approval from Congress, the president does not possess the authority to disband USAID or terminate its operations. However, the administration has argued that the judicial and legislative branches’ capacity to impede its foreign policy decisions is exceedingly limited.
“The President’s powers concerning foreign affairs are typically extensive and beyond judicial review,” stated government attorneys in court documents.
