A recent decision by a federal appeals court has paved the way for Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to continue implementing reductions at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This move comes as the Trump administration actively proceeds toward dismantling USAID. On Friday, insider reports indicated that a significant number of USAID jobs would be eliminated by September, marking a substantial restructuring effort.
The announcement of the imminent layoffs was communicated via email to staff by Jeremy Lewin, a former Musk team member now holding senior responsibilities within the agency. The communications revealed the administration’s intentions to eradicate USAID’s independent operations by autumn, as discovered by obtained notices.
Moreover, Secretary of State Marco Rubio informed Congress of the Trump administration’s official plans to slash most USAID programs, transferring the surviving functions to fall under the jurisdiction of the State Department.
This legal development follows a challenge to DOGE, prompted by a lawsuit asserting that its activities were unconstitutional due to the absence of direct electoral or Senate approval for Musk’s involvement in governmental decisions. Although a district court had initially sided with these allegations, the appeals court contradicted this by asserting that the restructuring decisions were ratified by government officials and not solely attributable to Musk.
The 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals addressed Musk’s public comments, which depicted the dismantling of USAID in a metaphorically harsh light. However, the court opined that these statements were not concrete evidence of his commanding the cuts but instead reflected his role as an adviser to President Trump, aligned with the administrative agenda of reducing perceived governmental inefficiencies. Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, noted the unconventional but not necessarily unconstitutional nature of DOGE’s actions.
While the appeals court did leave room for additional assessment of the case, thus maintaining the complaint’s relevance, the broader claims of infringing constitutional separation should be addressed to the executive branch of the government.
The legal team opposing the cuts, led by attorney Norm Eisen, expressed disagreement with the ruling yet recognized the preservation of arguments contending the unconstitutionality of the restructuring on other bases.
The Trump administration, declining immediate commentary, had previously been instructed by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang to reinstate email and digital access to impacted USAID employees but had stopped short of reversing terminations or completely restoring the agency.
The move to dismantle USAID has faced opposition from Democratic lawmakers, who argue that the administration has overstepped legal boundaries by eliminating the agency, founded six decades ago, without legislative consent. USAID is perceived by its supporters to contribute directly to U.S. strategic interests through overseas aid and development.
January 20 marked the initiation of these cuts via executive order by Trump, leading to the closure of USAID operations and termination of numerous global contracts, affecting aid delivery planned responses to international emergencies and health crises. Furthermore, there has been disruption to the personal lives of USAID staff abroad, previously given limited time to adjust to their recall, now to undergo a gradual return to the United States later this year.