Judge Denies Emergency Relief For Fired USIP Members After Armed DOGE Takeover
While a federal judge Wednesday expressed disgust with DOGE's armed takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace, she ruled against the fired board members' request to be immediately reinstated.
Judge Beryl Howell of the D.C. District Court will instead let the firings stand for now, requesting that the parties come up with a schedule to move the case forward quickly.
She found that the fired board members were not likely enough to succeed on the merits or be found to have suffered irreparable harm, pointing both to the uniqueness of the agency — a charitable corporation set up by Congress to operate independently — and the precedent set by the D.C. Circuit in Dellinger v. Bessent. In that case, the D.C. Circuit Court nullified a temporary restraining order from the lower court, which had restored the fired head of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel.
She delivered her ruling from the bench, and it may have come as a surprise to the lawyers before her. She'd spent much of the two-hour hearing lambasting DOGE for taking over the USIP building and expelling its staff with armed law enforcement, threats of criminal investigation and unannounced home visits by the FBI.
'This conduct of using law enforcement, threatening criminal investigations, using armed law enforcement from three different agencies — the Metropolitan Police Department, Department of State security police, the FBI — to carry out Executive Order 14217 — all of that targeting, probably terrorizing, the employees and the staff at the Institute when there are so many other lawful ways to accomplish the goals,' she said, her first remarks to Brian Hudak of the U.S. Attorney's Office in D.C. 'Why? Why those ways here? Just because DOGE is in a rush?'
Later, she asked Hudak if he was 'offended' at how the takeover was executed, saying that she was offended on behalf of the American citizens who had been treated 'so abominably.'
While DOGE's takeover of USIP echoes its takeover of other small agencies oriented towards foreign aid and peacemaking, it has distinct, sinister notes. The board members were fired abruptly, by email, without any attempt to fulfill the statutory requirements for their removal, much the same as at other agencies. The members of the administration who serve as 'ex-officio' members of the board quickly installed their own president. But the use of law enforcement in the USIP takeover sets it apart.
With mounting incredulity, Howell pressed the lawyer for the fired board members for details on FBI agents arriving 'unannounced' at the home of the Institute's security chief, as DOGE sought ways into the building. She gaped at DOGE's ultimate strategy for gaining entry: threatening all the federal contracts of the Institute's ex-security contractors, who still had a key that they ended up using to access the building. She counted up the total number of armed law enforcement on the premises: 'That's a lot of law enforcement at a charitable corporation's building to enforce this executive order, wouldn't you say?' she asked the attorneys. As she mulled granting the fired board members' request for reinstatement and tossing DOGE off the premises, she half-joked that it could spark an 'armed battle.'
DOGE hasn't softened its methods, despite losing some other illegal-firing battles in the lower courts. Indeed, calls to impeach judges who rule against the administration — often amplified by Elon Musk — have only grown louder on the right, with President Trump calling for the impeachment of a 'radical left lunatic of a judge' who temporarily stopped his expulsion of Venezuelan migrants under war powers not used by a president since World War II. In a rare move, Chief Justice John Roberts released a statement rebuking the calls for judicial impeachment.
Still, if actual lower court losses haven't stopped DOGE, it's hard to see how Howell's ruling allowing the firings to stand, no matter how sternly delivered, will slow its razing of the federal government — rendering one of her lines of questioning Wednesday an academic one:
What are legal ways the administration could shrink the federal government 'without using the force of guns and threats by DOGE against American citizens and those who served our country for years?'

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Times
21 minutes ago
- New York Times
Is Civil War Coming to Europe?
Whether the debate is occasioned by a polemical book or a movie like last year's 'Civil War,' I consistently take the negative on the question of whether the United States is headed for a genuine civil war. In those debates it's usually liberals warning that populism or Trumpism is steering the United States toward the abyss. But with European politics the pattern is different: In France and Britain, and among American observers of the continent, a preoccupation with looming civil war tends to be more common among conservatives. For years, figures associated with the French right and French military have warned of an impending civil conflict driven by the country's failure to assimilate immigrants from the Muslim world. (The great reactionary novelist Michel Houellebecq's 'Submission' famously imagines this war being averted by the sudden conversion of French elites to Islam.) Lately there has been a similar discussion around Britain touched off by an essay by the military historian David Betz that argues that multicultural Britain is in danger of tearing itself apart, and lately taken up by the political strategist, Brexit-campaign architect and former Boris Johnson adviser Dominic Cummings in an essay warning that British elites are increasingly fearful of organized violence from nativists and radicalized immigrants alike. When I've written skeptically about scenarios for an American civil war, I've tended to stress several realities: the absence of a clear geographical division between our contending factions; the diminishment, not exacerbation, of racial and ethnic polarization in the Trump era; the fact that we're rich and aging and comfortable, not poor and young and desperate, giving even groups that hate each other a stake in the system and elites strong reasons to sustain it; the absence of enthusiasm for organized communal violence as opposed to lone-wolf forays. Does the European landscape look different? On some fronts, maybe. Tensions between natives and new arrivals are common on both sides of the Atlantic, but ethnic and religious differences arguably loom larger in Europe than they do in the United States: There is more intense cultural separatism in immigrant communities in suburban Paris or Marseilles than in Los Angeles or Chicago, more simmering discontent that easily turns to riots. At the same time, British and French elites have been more successful than American elites at keeping populist forces out of power, but their tools — not just the exclusion of populists from government, but an increasingly authoritarian throttling of free speech — have markedly diminished their own legitimacy among discontented natives. This means that neither under-assimilated immigrants nor working-class whites feel especially invested in the system, making multiple forms of political violence more plausible: pitting immigrant or native rebels against the government, or pitting immigrants against natives with the government trying to suppress the conflict, or, finally, pitting different immigrant groups against one another. (English cities have already played host to bursts of Muslim-Hindu violence.) Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Elon Musk Slams Trump's Spending Bill: ‘A Disgusting Abomination'
A serious rift has erupted between Elon Musk and President Trump over the massive government spending bill the president has urged Congress to pass. Musk, who donated nearly $275 million toward Trump's 2024 election campaign, on Tuesday posted on X an unambiguous denunciation of the bill, which is called the One Big, Beautiful Bill Act. More from Variety London Mayor Sadiq Khan Hails 'Adolescence' for Having 'Mainstreamed' Conversation About 'Epidemic' of Violence Against Women Jon Stewart Tackles Elon Musk's Exit From the Trump Administration: 'This Guy Has Seen Some S--' Elon Musk Says New York Times Is 'Lying Their Ass Off' About His Alleged Drug Use; Newspaper Defends Coverage 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk wrote. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' The tech mogul wrote that the bill 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit' and that 'Congress is making America bankrupt.' Musk, the world's richest person, also posted a warning that voters would 'fire all politicians who betrayed the American people' in the 2026 midterm elections. On May 28, Musk announced the he would end his tenure as a 'special government employee' — leading the White House's Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE — after 128 days. Per the U.S. Department of the Interior, a person cannot serve in such a role for more than 130 days in a consecutive year. Sen. Ran Paul (R-Kentucky) was among those chiming in to agree with Musk. 'We have both seen the massive waste in government spending and we know another $5 trillion in debt is a huge mistake. We can and must do better,' he wrote, quoting Musk's post. Trump, on Truth Social, earlier in the day slammed Paul, writing 'Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming. He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not. The BBB is a big WINNER!!!' At a White House press briefing, Fox News correspondent Peter Doocy asked press secretary Karoline Leavitt 'how mad do you think President Trump is going to be' about Musk's comments? Leavitt responded that Trump 'already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion. This is one big, beautiful bill, and he's sticking to it.' The One Big, Beautiful Bill Act passed the Republican-controlled House but has yet to clear the Senate. The legislation would make Trump's 2017 tax cuts permanent (with wealthy Americans benefiting the most) and increase funding for the U.S. military and immigration enforcement. In addition, the version that passed the House cuts funding for health, nutrition, education and clean energy programs. Musk has criticized the 'Big Beautiful Bill' before, but using tamer terminology. Last week, for example, Musk criticized Trump's 'massive spending bill' in an interview with CBS's 'Sunday Morning,' saying the legislation 'undermines the work' of DOGE. Best of Variety What's Coming to Netflix in June 2025 New Movies Out Now in Theaters: What to See This Week 'Harry Potter' TV Show Cast Guide: Who's Who in Hogwarts?
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
‘Disgusting abomination': Elon Musk tears into Trump megabill
Billionaire Elon Musk ramped up his criticism of the megabill of President Trump's tax cut and spending priorities, calling the legislation a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination,' Musk posted Tuesday on his social platform X. 'Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it,' Musk added. The legislation, officially titled the 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' extends Trump's 2017 tax cuts and boosts funding for border and defense priorities, while making cuts to spending on social safety net programs such as Medicaid and food aid. It passed the House last month and is being considered by the Senate, which is expected to make tweaks to the legislation. The comments come after top Republicans, including Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), pushed back on Musk telling 'CBS News Sunday Morning' last week that the bill 'undermined' the work of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which he spearheaded. Johnson said in interviews on Fox News and NBC News in the following days that he had sent a 'long text' to Musk explaining the provisions in the bill — which is not a regular whole-of-government spending bill, but one that can move through a special 'reconciliation' process that bypasses a Democratic filibuster in the Senate. Johnson has also pledged to quickly move on a $9.4 billion package to codify DOGE cuts to the United States Agency for International Development, and public broadcasting. The White House is sending that package to the Senate on Tuesday. Musk, though, did not appear to change his mind. 'It will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion (!!!) and burden America [sic] citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt,' Musk said in a follow-up post. The Congressional Budget Office is expected to release projections for the latest version of the bill Wednesday. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt responded to Musk from the podium. 'The president already knows where Elon Musk stood on this bill. It doesn't change the president's opinion,' Leavitt said. Musk last week stepped back from his role as a special government employee DOGE. Brett Samuels contributed. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.