Judge Rules Musk's DOGE Acted Unconstitutionally by Dismantling USAID

A U.S. judge on Tuesday barred the Trump administration-created Department of Government Efficiency from taking "any actions relating" to the federal international aid agency it began pushing to dismantle in February, and said "special government employee" Elon Musk likely acted unconstitutionally "in multiple ways" by moving to shut down the agency.

In Maryland, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang ruled in favor of 26 current and former employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), one of the earliest targets of Musk's push to slash government spending and fire tens of thousands of civil servants. Chuang ordered DOGE to restore email, payment, and system access to all current USAID employees.

The workers are being represented by the State Democracy Defenders Fund, and have accused Musk of acting unconstitutionally.

"Today's decision is an important victory against Elon Musk and his DOGE attack on USAID, the United States government, and the Constitution," said Norm Eisen, executive chair of the group. "They are performing surgery with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel, harming not just the people USAID serves but also the majority of Americans who count on the stability of our government. This case is a milestone in pushing back on Musk and DOGE's illegality."

Chuang is one of several federal judges who have blocked President Donald Trump and Musk's actions ostensibly aimed at improving "efficiency" and eliminating waste in the federal government; other judges have blocked the president's freezing of federal grants and loans, his invocation of the Alien Enemies Act, and his order attacking diversity, equity, and inclusiveness programs.

But Chuang's ruling reportedly marks the first time a judge has ruled that Musk should likely be required to be confirmed by the U.S. Senate under the Constitution's appointments clause.

"The record of his activities to date establishes that his role has been and will continue to be as the leader of DOGE, with the same duties and degree of continuity as if he was formally in that position,'" wrote Chuang.

The State Democracy Defenders Fund noted Tuesday that "the Constitution's appointments clause only gives those powers to people nominated by the president and confirmed by the U.S. Senate, neither of which applies to Musk. Since Musk's role as the de facto DOGE administrator constitutes the performance of significant governmental duties that should only be handled by duly appointed officers of the United States, the plaintiffs ultimately seek a permanent injunction preventing Musk and his team from continuing their roles."

The Trump administration has claimed Musk is only an adviser to the president and is not the administrator of DOGE, which has spearheaded efforts to shut down agencies including the Department of Education and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), and to fire federal employees across agencies.

"If a president could escape appointments clause scrutiny by having advisers go beyond the traditional role of White House advisers who communicate the president's priorities to agency heads and instead exercise significant authority throughout the federal government so as to bypass duly appointed officers, the appointments clause would be reduced to nothing more than a technical formality," the judge said.

Chuang rejected the claim that DOGE's actions are not being directed by Musk, saying the Tesla CEO and Trump megadonor appeared to have been involved in closing the CFPB and to "have taken other unilateral actions without any apparent authorization from agency officials."

"The evidence presently favors the conclusion that contrary to defendants' sweeping claim that Musk acted only as an adviser, Musk made the decisions to shut down USAID's headquarters and website even though he 'lacked the authority to make that decision,'" Chuang said, quoting an argument from the Trump administration.

Mimi Marziani of Marziani, Stevens & Gonzalez PLLC, which helped defend the USAID workers in court, said the plaintiffs "are regular Americans who have faithfully served our country and the public good but have had their lives turned upside down because Musk wants to play master of the universe."

"We are proud to stand up for the plaintiffs and the Constitution," said Marziani, "which is designed to guard against these very sorts of abuses because our nation depends upon a government for all, not for a few."