Federal judge halts the Trump administration from dismantling the US African Development Foundation
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., ruled that Trump violated federal law when he appointed Pete Marocco the new head of the U.S. African Development Foundation, or USDAF, because Marocco was never confirmed by Congress.
As a result, Marocco's actions — terminating most of the agency's employees and effectively ending the agency's grants — are void and must be undone, the judge found.
Congress created USADF as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries.
On February 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. Trump also fired the agency's board members and installed Marocco as the board chair.
Two USDAF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF sued on May 21, challenging Marocco's appointment and saying the deep cuts to the agency prevented it from carrying out its congressionally mandated functions.
The staffers and consulting firm asked the judge for a preliminary injunction, saying Marocco's 'slash-and-burn approach' threatened to reduce the agency to rubble before their lawsuit is resolved. They said the Federal Vacancies Reform Act prohibited Marocco's appointment to USADF, and that the same law requires that any actions done by an unlawfully appointed person must be unwound.
'This is a victory for the rule of law and the communities that rely on USADF's vital work,' said Joel McElvain, senior legal adviser at Democracy Forward, the organization representing the USDAF staffers and consulting firm in their lawsuit. 'We will continue fighting against these power grabs to protect USADF's ability to fulfill the mission that Congress gave it to perform.'
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro had written in court documents that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act doesn't apply to USADF, and that the president has the authority to designate acting members of the agency's board until the Senate confirms his nominees. Any claims about the cuts themselves, Pirro said, must be handled in the Court of Federal Claims, not the federal district court.
The judge found in a separate case that Trump had the legal authority to fire the previous members of the USADF board. Pirro wrote in court documents in that case that the president also has the legal authority to appoint someone to run the USADF, consistent with Trump's policy goals, until the Senate could confirm his nominees.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Harvard is staring at a billion-dollar budget shortfall from its clash with Trump
Harvard University would face a budget shortfall of about a billion dollars a year if President Trump follows through on all of his plans and threats spanning research funding, tax policy and student enrollment, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal. That grim math helps explain why Harvard has taken steps toward negotiating with the administration after months of defiance. The Journal's estimate, based on publicly available data, is for a worst-case scenario in which Harvard loses all federal research funding, federal student aid and its ability to enroll international students, and Congress hikes its annual endowment tax to 8%. A sustained shortfall of that magnitude would severely strain Harvard's ability to manage its $6.4 billion annual operating budget. Though Harvard has a $53 billion endowment, more than 80% of the money is subject to donor restrictions, meaning it can't be touched to patch budget gaps without inviting lawsuits. 'They've got enough money to keep going for a while, but eventually they're going to have to make substantial cuts," said Robert Kelchen, a professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, who studies education finance. 'You would change the future of the institution." The Trump administration has sought to make Harvard a poster child in its fight against institutions it says haven't taken concerns about antisemitism and diversity programs seriously. Harvard has said it is working to promote intellectual openness in the classroom and to enroll students willing to engage across perspectives. Talks between the two sides were under way as recently as mid-June, according to a social-media post by the president. The Trump administration on Monday told Harvard the university had violated federal civil-rights law over its treatment of Jewish and Israeli students, risking further funding. Asked about the pressure on Harvard's finances, a senior White House official said the school will receive no money 'until it ends its discriminatory and deeply embarrassing practices. The private sector is welcome to step in and support Harvard." The university said in a statement: 'Harvard has made significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias. We are not alone in confronting this challenge and recognize that this work is ongoing." Harvard has rejected Trump's demands for change and twice sued the administration, challenging the withdrawal of research funding and the ban on international students. A federal judge has halted the ban, a decision the Trump administration has said it would appeal. Lawmakers were working this week to complete comprehensive tax legislation that included the increase in the endowment levy. Trump has also asked the Internal Revenue Service to revoke the university's tax-exempt status, a move that could slow donations and slap the university with a costly property tax bill. Harvard President Alan Garber has told donors and others he is worried that the government's pullback from funding basic research jeopardizes Harvard's standing as a premier research institution globally. He has cited the Nature Index, a ranking of research entities in which Harvard places highly and many of the other top spots are held by Chinese institutions. The administration has already cut off multiyear grants for Harvard amounting to $700 million a year in research dollars. That money supports research on such topics as breast cancer, colon cancer, pediatric HIV, and limb regrowth following amputation, a Harvard official wrote in a June court filing. Harvard 'cannot cover the funding gap itself," he wrote. Harvard still has more financial levers to pull than many other schools, with around $3 billion in cash reserves and the ability to borrow more. The school often runs a budget surplus. Operating revenue in the 2024 fiscal year exceeded expenses by $45 million. The university borrowed $750 million in April to help cover budget gaps and has earmarked $250 million of its cash to fund affected research as a stopgap measure. Some of its schools and centers are seeking corporate funding. Meanwhile, Garber has been trying to drum up gifts to a new Presidential Priorities Fund to give the university 'flexibility to address pressing needs and fresh opportunities as they arise." The university has also set up a presidential fund for donors who want to support research at the school. 'I am grateful to everyone who stands with Harvard as we continue to pursue our mission," Garber wrote in a fundraising appeal in May. Some major donors have rallied, with the billionaire investor Len Blavatnik recently making a nearly $19 million gift to Harvard Medical School to fund life-sciences research, according to people familiar with the matter. Other big donors who paused giving after the Oct. 7, 2023, attacks led by Hamas on Israel have kept their distance, saying they want to see Harvard move faster to combat antisemitism or promote free expression on campus. The 1636 Forum, a group founded by two alumni, has been urging donors to keep giving to Harvard but specify where any contributions they make go. Another avenue open to Harvard is for its governing body, the Harvard Corporation, to approve a one-time increase in how much the school draws from the endowment, without touching restricted money. (In recent years, the endowment has funded more than a third of Harvard's annual operating budget.) The Trump administration's actions have already led Harvard to cut back. It has frozen new hires, and Harvard's Kennedy School of Government is laying off staff and shrinking department budgets. 'Harvard is peering over the precipice," said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, a trade group for higher education. If the school's court battles against the Trump administration don't succeed, he said, 'Harvard and American education will suffer a severe, perhaps irreparable blow." Harvard's investment commitments to private equity, which includes venture capital and investments in fast-growing private companies, create other financial obligations. Private-markets fund managers can request hundreds of millions of dollars of previously committed cash from Harvard at any time. The school has agreed to hand over more than $12 billion over the next decade as investment opportunities emerge. Harvard's exposure to private-equity funds, which generally promise high returns but are less liquid than investments in stocks or bonds, grew to 39% in 2024 from 20% in 2019, according to the school's financial reports. Part of the increase was driven by the sector's blockbuster returns in 2021. Income from private-equity investments began slowing in 2022 as rates rose and the market for initial public offerings froze. Harvard has shrunk its footprint in other illiquid areas such as real estate and natural resources. The university has been willing to sell some of its private-equity holdings at a discount. Harvard this spring sold $1 billion in private-equity assets for 7% less than what its books said they were worth, according to people familiar with the matter, in a process that started last year. Its slate included stakes in managers Harvard doesn't currently plan to invest with, one of the people said. Even a decisive court victory can only go so far in protecting Harvard's federal funding, said Aziz Huq, a law professor at the University of Chicago. Trump might not have the legal authority to take away research dollars that already have been promised to Harvard. But going forward, his administration could simply not promise the money again. 'It's that threat that's looming," he said. Methodology: WSJ estimated the cost of an 8% tax on annual investment income by comparing it with the current endowment tax rate of 1.4%. The estimated $90 million potential loss in international student tuition was calculated by multiplying the number of undergraduates in 2024 coming from outside the U.S., who typically pay full costs, by last year's price of tuition, room and board. Also included in the loss estimate for college and graduate school is about $20 million in federal financial aid that is potentially at risk. Write to Heather Gillers at and Juliet Chung at
India.com
29 minutes ago
- India.com
INDIA Bloc Slams ECIs Bihar Electoral Roll Revision, Calls It Attack On Constitution
A delegation of 11 opposition parties, led by Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi, met with the Election Commission of India (ECI) on Wednesday to strongly oppose the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of electoral rolls in Bihar and said that it's a "worst attack on the basic structure of the Constitution." Singhvi met Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and Election Commissioners Sukhbir Singh Sandhu and Vivek Joshi and questioned the timing of the SIR exercise, noting that it is being carried out only months before the upcoming Assembly elections. "Firstly, the last revision was in 2003. For 22 years, more than four of five Bihar elections have happened. Were all those elections faulty?... Secondly the Special Intensive Revision which was held in 2003, was held one year before the Lok Sabha Elections, two years before the Assembly election. Today you are having in July, a maximum period of one or two months for an electoral revision exercise of the second most largest electoral populated state in India, want to have it in one and a half to two months," the Congress leader said, ANI reported. The delegation included representatives from various parties, such as the Communist Party of India, CPI (Marxist-Leninist), Samajwadi Party, Nationalist Congress Party (Sharadchandra Pawar), Rashtriya Janata Dal, and Congress. Abhishek Manu Singhvi cautioned that such a rushed revision process could distort the electoral rolls and called it a direct threat to constitutional democracy. "This enfranchisement is the worst attack on the basic structure of the Constitution. Today, every word counts, even if you wrongfully delete or wrongfully add a single voter, it is creating a non-level playing field that affects democracy and elections. This violates the basic structure of the Constitution," Singhvi added. The ECI has claimed that the SIR is only meant to verify voters and to identify any 'ineligible voters' ahead of the Assembly elections which are expected to be held later this year in Bihar. (With ANI inputs)
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
‘Votebandi' will destroy democracy: INDIA bloc raises alarm over Bihar electoral roll revision move
Representatives of the opposition INDIA bloc met the Election Commission of India on July 2 to raise concerns over the timing of the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) of the voter list in Bihar. They alleged that the massive exercise could disenfranchise over two crore voters in the poll-bound state. Leaders from 11 parties, including the Congress, RJD, CPI(M), CPI, CPI(ML) Liberation, NCP-SP, and the Samajwadi Party, objected to the special revision exercise of the voters' list that began in Bihar about a week ago before Chief Election Commissioner Gyanesh Kumar and other election commissioners. "After meeting the Election Commission, our concerns have increased further because the Commission did not give a satisfactory reply to any of our questions," CPI(ML) Liberation General Secretary Dipankar Bhattacharya, who went on to call the process 'votebandi', said. The opposition parties, including the Congress, claimed that after the prime minister's 'notebandi' (demonetisation) that "destroyed" the country's economy, EC's 'Votebandi' in Bihar will demolish India's democracy. "After the PM's 'notebandi' of November 2016 destroyed our economy, ECI's 'VOTEBandi' in Bihar and other states, as reflected in the SIR, will destroy our democracy," Congress general secretary Jairam Ramesh said in a post on X. When the delegation reached Nirvachan Sadan, the Election Commission's office in New Delhi, it was told that only two members from each party would be allowed in. "For the first time, we were given rules to enter the Election Commission (EC). For the first time, we were told only party chiefs can go. Such restrictions mean that necessary dialogue between political parties and the EC can't happen... Today, only two people per party were allowed, which left leaders like Jairam Ramesh, Pawan Khera and Akhilesh Singh standing outside," Congress leader Abhishek Manu Singhvi said outside EC office. The INDIA bloc parties have been vocal in their opposition to the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) exercise that has already started in Bihar and is to be carried out in Assam, Kerala, Puducherry, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal, which are going to the polls next year. Singhvi said a minimum of two crore people may be disenfranchised in this exercise as many, especially, the SCs, STs, migratory and impoverished, among the nearly eight crore voters in Bihar may not be in a position to present their and their parents' birth certificates to the poll authorities in such a short period. "We asked the EC that the last revision was in 2003, and for 22 years after 4-5 elections have happened, were all those elections faulty or imperfect or unreliable. The SIR was held one year before the general elections and two years before the assembly elections," he said. He said that in a maximum period of one or two months, the EC is holding an electoral revision exercise of India's second most populous state, Bihar, which has roughly under eight crore voters. 'This disenfranchisement and disempowerment is the worst attack on the basic structure of the Constitution. We gave universal adult suffrage in 1950, when so-called advanced countries like the USA and the UK got it only in 1924 and 1928,' Singhvi said. EC sources said some of the participants were given an appointment and others were allowed to join in without any prior appointment, as the Commission decided to meet two representatives from every party. The EC told them that SIR is being conducted in accordance with the provisions of Article 326, RP Act 1950, and instructions issued on June 24. The Commission also said it "fully addressed" each concern raised by the parties. The poll panel has issued instructions to carry out a Special Intensive Revision in Bihar to weed out ineligible names and ensure all eligible citizens are included in the electoral roll, allowing them to exercise their franchise in the polls slated later this year. The poll panel has said it has taken additional steps in the intensive revision to ensure illegal migrants do not get enrolled in the voters' list. Beginning 25 June, the Election Commission is holding the Special Intensive Revision (SIR) in poll-bound Bihar. This means electoral rolls for Bihar will be prepared afresh. The move sparked a political row, with the Congress opposing it, saying it risks the willful exclusion of voters using the state machinery. West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee called the move 'more dangerous than NRC (National Register of Citizens)' and alleged that her state, which heads to polls next year, was the real 'target'. In the process, the Booth Level Officers(BLOs) are conducting a house-to-house survey for verification during the process of this intensive revision. In the previous special intensive revisions, BLOs would go house to house with an 'enumeration pad' to be filled by the head of a household. This time, however, each voter in a household will have to submit an individual enumeration form. Voters added to the electoral rolls after 1 January 2003 — the year of the last intensive revision — must provide proof of citizenship. The Election Commission has uploaded the 2003 Bihar electoral roll, comprising details of 4.96 crore electors, on its website, the poll panel said on 30 June. After the PM's 'notebandi' of November 2016 destroyed our economy, ECI's 'VOTE-Bandi' in Bihar and other states will destroy our democracy. These 4.96 crore electors do not need to submit any documents, the poll panel said. It also said that the children of these 4.96 crore electors need not submit any other document relating to their parents.
