Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses.
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law.
USADF was created 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 Feb. 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. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated.
Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board.
But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6.
Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Monday Mornings
The latest local business news and a lookahead to the coming week.
Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required.
Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Canada Standard
24 minutes ago
- Canada Standard
Wildfires Push Climate Onto the Agenda as G7 Leaders Meet in Alberta
With the G7 leaders' summit due to descend on Kananaskis, Alberta June 15-17, questions are swirling about what Canada can accomplish with this year's G7 presidency and how agreement is possible with Donald Trump in the room-while swirling smoke from a devastating Prairie wildfire season helps bring climate change back onto the leaders' agenda. Now in its 50th year, the G7 brings together the leaders of seven of the world's biggest economies plus the European Union in what is described as a "forum for co-operation, stability, and shared prosperity." The leaders' summit each year is meant to end with a consensus statement of all the countries. But community voices on everything from climate change to international finance and justice have rarely been satisfied with the outcome. Much of the news analysis leading up to this year's event has cast the G7 as a diminished institution, reduced to handshakes, photo ops, and carefully-worded generalities that are the most the countries can agree to. Coming into this year's summit, the G7's "legitimacy is hanging by a thread. Its promises have fallen flat, its unity is strained, and its moral voice is fading fast," retired civil servant Bhagwant Sandhu writes for The Hill Times. "Originally conceived as a multilateral pact among Western democracies to steward global economic control, the G7 was never intended to serve the desires of its most powerful-and now unpredictable and illiberal-member: the United States," he adds. "The group's initial goals have been obscured by authoritarianism, unilateral action, and creeping militarization." That leaves Prime Minister Mark Carney with a choice, Sandhu says. "Canada can, of course, preside over the usual choreography of communiques and handshakes-or try something more ambitious: restore the G7 to its founding mission." Carney's office kicked off that discussion June 7 with a list of the three "core missions" the PM will pursue in his role as G7 president, all "anchored in building stronger economies"-the same priority, CBC points out, that he has brought to the domestic scene in Canada. The list includes: "Protecting our communities and the world" by "strengthening peace and security, countering foreign interference and transnational crime, and improving joint responses to wildfires"; View our latest digests Building energy security and speeding up the "digital transition" by fortifying critical mineral supply chains and using technologies like artificial intelligence to spur economic growth; Investing in stronger infrastructure, creating higher-paying jobs, and fostering "dynamic", competitive markets for business. But much of the attention so far has been on the chaos Trump will bring to the table, just as he did in 2018 when Canada last hosted the G7 in Charlevoix, Quebec. Then, as now, U.S. tariffs were at the centre of the discussion, and Trump issued two angry tweets pulling the U.S. out of the leaders' final communique, just hours after countries had signed off on the text. "A show of unity on big geopolitical problems that holds longer than a few hours after President Donald Trump's participation will be seen as success after the American president in 2018 blew up a fragile consensus even before he left the last Canada-hosted G7 in Charlevoix, Que., later angrily insulting then-prime minister and G7 host Justin Trudeau," writes Toronto Star Ottawa bureau chief Tonda McCharles. This time around, "a key performance indicator for the summit will [be] getting something down that all leaders can agree upon that will also include the U.S.-and that will be a challenge," Deanna Horton, a diplomat who served twice in the Canadian embassy in Washington, told The Hill Times. On June 11, McCharles reported that organizers of this year's summit are not looking for a final communique that represents a consensus of all G7 members. "Instead, G7 host Carney is expected to issue a G7 chair's statement and the closed-door high-stakes sessions that could nevertheless produce some heated discussions will be summarized in documents likely to be so whitewashed of the juicy bits, that they could almost be written in advance." The Star has details on how the Summit agenda is likely to play out. Carney has also stirred controversy with the list of "middle power" countries he's invited to the summit. In addition to the leaders of Ukraine, Mexico, Brazil, South Africa, Australia, and South Korea, the list includes Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, whose government has been linked to acts of murder and extortion on Canadian soil, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has been connected to human rights crackdowns, mistreatment of migrants, and the 2018 murder and dismemberment of journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Meanwhile, Carney's plan for the summit makes scant direct reference to past G7 commitments in areas like power sector decarbonization, methane controls, forest and land degradation, and elimination of fossil fuel subsidies-a promise the countries made in 2016 and were supposed to deliver on by this year. "Its climate commitments remain stalled, and the vaunted $600-billion infrastructure pledge to the Global South-first announced in 2021 as the 'Build Back Better World' initiative-has been more frequently rebranded and re-announced than realized," Sandhu writes for The Hill Times. Moreover, "the G7 has yet to fulfill its decades-old promise to allocate 0.7% of each member's gross national income to humanitarian aid. At the start of the 2023 Hiroshima summit, it was still short by a staggering US$4.49-trillion. More troubling still, members like the United Kingdom have diverted aid funds from humanitarian crises to finance NATO expansions, raising serious questions about the group's priorities." In a release this week, Oxfam warned the G7 is in the midst of its biggest-ever foreign aid cut. The member countries, which account for three-quarters of the world's official development assistance, are on track to cut their aid budgets 28% in 2026 compared to 2024 levels, the organization said. "Rather than breaking from the Trump administration's cruel dismantling of USAID and other U.S. foreign assistance, G7 countries like the UK, Germany, and France are instead following the same path, slashing aid with brutal measures that will cost millions of lives," said Oxfam International Executive Director Amitabh Behar. "The G7's retreat from the world is unprecedented and couldn't come at a worse time, with hunger, poverty, and climate harm intensifying. The G7 cannot claim to build bridges on one hand while tearing them down with the other." Meanwhile, in a G7 agenda stripped bare of any language that could rile up a volatile U.S. president, author Arno Kopecky says the massive wildfires covering swaths of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, and British Columbia are playing into Canadian officials' plan for keeping climate change in the conversation. When officials first began planning the meeting last year, "Canada's Liberal government wanted the G7 to discuss climate change (the host nation sets the summit agenda), but what if Donald Trump was there as President?" Kopecky writes for the Globe and Mail. "This was no abstract worry either: the day before Jasper caught fire, Joe Biden had dropped out of the presidential race, and the Democrats' prospects looked dismal." Officials "knew that if they start with the standard stuff on climate change, Donald Trump and his people would get out their red pens and just say 'no way,'" John Kirton, founding director of the G7 Research Group, told Kopecky. "So then, what is your strategy? And wildfires was the answer." The difference, Kopecky writes, is that while Trump refuses to listen to climate science, he's seen a rash of wildfires since he returned to the White House in January, and his country is now receiving smoke from the blazes in Canada. "So Donald Trump's got a reason to be seen to be doing something about it," Kirton said. It also "speaks volumes" that the energy security section of the G7 agenda talks about artificial intelligence, but makes no reference to oil and gas, Kopecky writes. Source: The Energy Mix
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
A president toys with overturning democracy
Opinion 'Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault,' California Gov. Gavin Newsom warned on Tuesday night in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's actions in the Los Angeles protests. Demonstrations began last week in that city after Immigration and Customs Enforcement raided several city locations to arrest people allegedly involved in illegal immigration to the United States and other violations. Trump has ordered in the National Guard and the military in response. For those of us who are a certain vintage, news of the unrest in Los Angeles brought up a lot of memories. Who can forget the hours of live television coverage over almost a week in 1992 as the world watched Los Angeles erupt in riots following the acquittal of four police officers for the beating of Rodney King. People died, more were injured and there was billions of dollars in property damage. The carnage was brought into everyone's living room, as television stations disrupted their regular programming to provide up-to-the-minute coverage. Damian Dovarganes / The Associated Press files A man walks past a burned-out car after a night of protests in downtown Los Angeles on Monday. Today's protests are not the same, yet because of what they represent, we should be paying close attention. Here's why. What is happening in Los Angeles is not only egregiously hypocritical, it's also the death of the fundamentals of democracy. First, some perspective. In 1992, then-president George Bush called in the National Guard to help quell protesters at the request of the Los Angeles mayor and the California governor. He invoked the Insurrection Act. Last Friday, protests began in Los Angeles, in protest to immigration raids targeting undocumented workers. These demonstrations were called peaceful for the most part by LAPD. Even the city's mayor downplayed the vandalism, vowing that those who did cause damage would be prosecuted. Saturday, Trump deployed 4,000 members of the National Guard to the city. Rather than using the Insurrection Act, Trump used a provision that allows the National Guard to be called in by the president in situations where authorities can't execute the country's laws. However, this provision also specifies that the order must be issued through the governor of the state. This is an overstep. Not one person has been killed. The protests have been limited to a small area in the city of Los Angeles. There has been no widespread damage to buildings or homes, although on Tuesday some looting was reported. More importantly, the governor of California did not ask for the National Guard to be called upon. California's attorney general announced Monday that the state is suing both Trump and his defence secretary for the deployment of the National Guard. Attorney General Rob Bonta wrote in a news release: 'Let me be clear: There is no invasion. There is no rebellion. The president is trying to manufacture chaos and crisis on the ground for his own political ends. Federalizing the California National Guard is an abuse of the president's authority under the law — and not one we take lightly. We're asking a court to put a stop to the unlawful, unprecedented order.' On Tuesday, Trump ordered 700 marines to be deployed, ostensibly to protect federal buildings. This, at a cost of about US$134 million, during a time of cutbacks at all levels of national spending. Meanwhile, also on Tuesday, Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass issued a curfew for a portion of the city's downtown to keep a lid on the situation citing vandalism and looting. Bass has suggested the city is at a tipping point. One wonders if Trump's actions have only added gasoline to the fire. Not one to dial down the rhetoric, Trump suggested he may consider invoking the Insurrection Act, similar to Bush in 1992. It's one of the most extreme emergency powers available to a U.S. president. He also called the protesters 'animals' and 'a foreign enemy' later in a speech. Tuesdays A weekly look at politics close to home and around the world. This is the same president who in his second day in office, pardoned the individuals involved in the Jan. 6, 2021, attacks on the Capitol Hill building in Washington D.C. and commuted the sentences for 14 individuals convicted or otherwise charged with engaging in the separate seditious conspiracies. The hypocrisy is staggering. The current protests in Los Angeles share some similarities with the 1992 riots and as they continue, they may become more disruptive and more violent. However, their importance suggests that we should be paying attention to them. What we're seeing play out is the demise of democracy where the rule of law, the right to protest and the sovereignty of state power is overturned by the agenda of an all too-powerful leader. Shannon Sampert is a political scientist. shannon@mediadiva.
Winnipeg Free Press
3 hours ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump's ostentatious vanity parade
Opinion One might be inclined to call it megalomania on the march. Or perhaps an atrocious acknowledgement of America's authoritarian advance. Or maybe just perversity on parade. However one chooses to describe it, in pithy alliterative terms or otherwise, the military spectacle U.S. President Donald Trump is throwing for himself this weekend in Washington, D.C. is nothing more or less than an ego-driven obscenity. The event, which is expected to include 6,600 armed forces personnel, 150 tanks, artillery and other fighting machines, and more than 50 aircraft, will wend its way along the north side of the National Mall early Saturday evening. It is being touted by the Trump administration as a commemoration of the 250th anniversary of the formal establishment of the U.S. Army. Alex Brandon / The Associated Press U.S. President Donald Trump Those same officials insist the fact the parade is taking place on Trump's 79th birthday is mere coincidence, and that this ostentatious display of military might — reportedly at a cost approaching US$45 million — is most definitely not the prideful president's taxpayer-funded birthday present to himself. A quick examination of this so-called anniversary celebration, however, suggests the pricey pageantry is likely more about the man than the armed forces institution. Plans to mark the army's 250th birthday have been in the works for a couple of years, but the massive parade was only added earlier this year, after Trump's return to the White House. His fascination with public displays of military might is well documented — he called the parade he witnessed during a 2017 state visit to China 'magnificent,' and described the Bastille Day event he observed the same year in Paris, which included a fighter-jet flyover complete with red/white/blue smoke trails, as 'one of the greatest parades' he'd ever seen. Trump was determined to have a parade of his own during his first term, but experienced military minds dissuaded him from such a gratuitous display. This time around, surrounded only by loyalists and lackeys, there is no such discouragement when Trump's vanity is aroused. Saturday's shameful stroking of the presidential ego will serve as the latest reminder of the president's obvious intention to style himself less as an elected democratic leader and more as an autocrat akin to the dictators — Putin, Xi and the like — he has openly admired. 'There's definitely a correlation between putting on a military parade and authoritarian regimes,' said Markus Schiller, CEO of the German-based aerospace and security consultancy ST Analytics. 'These parades are about sending a message to other countries and also to domestic political rivals.' Weekday Mornings A quick glance at the news for the upcoming day. Coming, as it does, at the end a week in which Trump dispatched National Guard and U.S. Marine troops to Los Angeles — against the wishes of California's governor and L.A.'s mayor — to quell protests against his administration's deportation-focused raids and roundups, the parade is a very public, exceedingly explicit declaration that this president views America's military as a force whose duty is to him alone, and whose considerable might can be directed toward anything that resists Trump's increasingly authoritarian will. When asked about his decision to send troops to California, Trump responded, 'We are going to have troops everywhere' that protests against his government arise. And should someone have the temerity to protest the president's repugnantly self-aggrandizing misuse of military machinery, the message is clear: 'They will be met with very big force. … I haven't heard about a protest, but you know, this is people that hate our country, but they will be met with very great force.' Don't think of it as a parade, or even a pointless presidential birthday vulgarity. Think of it as the latest warning of American democracy's imminent demise.
