Latest news with #USAID-related
NBC News
14-04-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
Trump gives campaign-style speech at Justice Department; Senate passes bill to avert government shutdown
Judge Carl Nichols today denied a temporary restraining order that would have stopped USAID from destroying vital documents. Nichols says, in his order, the documents that were being destroyed were either old, or existed somewhere else. 'USAID is only destroying duplicated, aged documents that are preserved either by other agencies or in an electronic format, in a manner that USAID represents is consistent with the Federal Records Act,' Nichols writes, citing a declaration from a USAID official. 'Permitting that process to continue will not harm the PSCA or the public, but interfering with it could hinder the agency's decommissioning process.' USAID's acting executive secretary, Erica Carr, earlier this week ordered staff to shred or burn classified and personnel documents remaining in USAID's offices in the Ronald Reagan building. Another group of plaintiffs who are already in USAID-related litigation also asked for a temporary restraining order to prevent the destruction of pertinent records. But those plaintiffs withdrew their motion yesterday, citing representations made by Carr.
Al Jazeera
19-03-2025
- Business
- Al Jazeera
Judge says Musk and DOGE ‘likely violated' constitution in USAID shutdown
A federal district judge in Maryland has found that Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) appear to have breached the United States Constitution through their efforts to dismantle an agency dedicated to distributing foreign aid. Judge Theodore Chuang issued the preliminary ruling on Tuesday, in response to a complaint filed by 26 employees and contractors for the US Agency for International Development (USAID). 'The Court finds that Defendants' actions taken to shut down USAID on an accelerated basis, including its apparent decision to permanently close USAID headquarters without the approval of a duly appointed USAID Officer, likely violated the United States Constitution in multiple ways,' Chuang wrote in his decision. Not only were the plaintiffs harmed, he added, but the 'public interest' was also. DOGE and Musk 'deprived the public's elected representatives in Congress of their constitutional authority to decide whether, when and how to close down an agency created by Congress', Chuang said. As a result of that finding, the judge approved a temporary injunction that would prevent DOGE and Musk from continuing with USAID-related staff cuts, contract cancellations, building closures and the destruction of USAID materials. 'The restrictions will assist in maintaining the status quo so as to delay a premature, final shutdown of USAID,' Chuang wrote. It was a significant blow to Musk, whose role in the government has been ambiguous – but who has wielded significant power due to his close relationship with US President Donald Trump. A tech billionaire and one of the wealthiest men in the world, Musk is considered a 'special government employee', a temporary role often given to outside advisers. In that role, however, he has led DOGE in a vast campaign to restructure the federal government, through downsizing its workforce, ending contracts and attempting to shutter entire agencies. USAID was one of the first in DOGE's crosshairs. Upon taking office for a second term on January 20, Trump issued a presidential order calling for a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid – a central part of USAID's work. Established in 1961 by an act of Congress, USAID had become the US's primary arm for distributing foreign assistance abroad. But under Trump's order, only aid that aligned with the president's foreign policy would be allowed to continue. Musk became the face of the campaign to close USAID entirely. 'USAID is a criminal organization,' he wrote on his social media platform X on February 2, without offering proof. 'Time for it to die.' Later that day, Musk posted another message on X: 'We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could [have] gone to some great parties. Did that instead.' By the end of February, the agency's headquarters in Washington, DC, was effectively closed, with employees given only 15 minutes to collect their belongings. An estimated 1,600 workers were fired, and another 4,700 were put on leave. Secretary of State Marco Rubio eventually announced that 83 percent of all USAID contracts had been cancelled. To justify the cuts across government, Musk and Trump have repeatedly accused departments and agencies of having perpetrated 'waste' and 'fraud', without offering proof. Given that USAID was established as an independent agency under Congress's Foreign Assistance Act, Judge Chuang ruled that Musk's actions 'likely violates the constitutional principle of Separation of Powers'. As part of Tuesday's injunction, Chuang required DOGE to restore USAID employees' access to electronic systems and called for the department to restore any deleted emails. Trump allies, however, quickly slammed Chuang – an appointee of former President Barack Obama – for his temporary injunction. wrote in a one-word reply.
Yahoo
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
This obscure law is one reason Trump's agenda keeps losing in court
WASHINGTON — Lawyers challenging President Donald Trump's aggressive use of executive power in the courts are turning to a familiar weapon in their armory: an obscure but routinely invoked federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. While lawsuits challenging such provocative plans as ending birthright citizenship and dismantling federal agencies raise weighty constitutional issues, they also claim Trump failed to follow the correct procedures as required under the wonky 1946 statute. Trump fell afoul of the law in some high-profile cases that reached the Supreme Court during his first term, raising the possibility he could suffer the same fate this time around. Known in abbreviated form as the APA, the law allows judges to throw out federal agency actions that are "arbitrary and capricious" on various grounds, including failing to articulate why the agencies are changing policy. Much to the anger of Trump and his officials, judges have been issuing a series of orders putting administration plans on hold, including freezes on federal funding and drastic reductions in staffing. The rulings are at a preliminary stage and often do not include detailed legal reasoning. In fact, one of Trump's first losses in court in his second term — over an Office of Management and Budget memo ordering across-the-board funding freezes — was based in part on a claim brought under the APA. The administration quickly rescinded the memo, although litigation continues. "What we're seeing from the Trump administration is they are moving so fast, and they're trying to do so much with so little reasoning, and they're trying to disrupt as much as possible, as fast as possible, that these actions are inherently arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, a lawyer involved in one of the lawsuits said. One example of plaintiffs' citing the law is a case about Trump's effort to reduce biomedical research funding, which a coalition of states said "violates the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple ways." It fails to "articulate the bases" for the change and shows "disregard for the factual findings" that set the current rate, the lawsuit said. A judge blocked the policy Monday. On Tuesday, a judge cited the APA in finding that the administration most likely violated the law in removing webpages featuring medical data that health care professionals rely on. A lawsuit workers at the U.S. Agency for International Development filed last week seeking to prevent hundreds of staff members' being put on leave also raised APA claims. 'The dissolution of USAID is arbitrary and capricious in multiple respects,' the unions' lawyers argued. A judge partially granted the unions' request Friday. In another USAID-related lawsuit filed Tuesday, contractors whose funding has been cut made similar arguments. The government did not "explain why a comprehensive, undifferentiated freeze was necessary" or explain why a "more orderly and targeted approach" could not have been taken, the lawsuit said. The APA haunted Trump during his first term. In 2019, the Supreme Court found that the administration had not revealed its true reason for wanting to add a citizenship question to the census. "Reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote then. A year later, the court ruled that the administration had failed to consider various factors when it sought to unwind the Obama administration policy that protects "Dreamers" from deportation. Its actions were "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, Roberts wrote. On both issues, Trump administration officials "were sloppy, and the court did not like that," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. He noted, however, that at this early stage, the administration could still fix at least some of its errors. In Trump's first term, for example, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld a revised version of a travel ban on people entering the country from mostly Muslim-majority countries after a more sweeping policy was pared back. "The fact they're sloppy out of the gate, I don't think that tells us how the courts will ultimately resolve it," Adler said. Trump is by no means the only president to have fallen afoul of the APA, which judges routinely cite in striking down federal agency actions on a wide variety of issues, including environmental and consumer regulations that agencies sometimes spend years reviewing. In a high-profile case during the Biden administration, a federal judge in Texas threw out an immigration enforcement policy that would have prioritized deporting violent criminals. Among other things, District Judge Drew Tipton found that the administration had failed to take into account evidence about the dangers of recidivism and abscondment among immigrants with criminal records that undermined its policy conclusions. The government, he added, was required "to show its work. It either failed or refused to do so. This was arbitrary and capricious." (The Supreme Court in 2023 ultimately ruled in favor of President Joe Biden, saying the states that sued did not have legal standing.) Despite the long history of courts' faulting presidents under the APA, various Trump allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, have harshly criticized judges for ruling against the administration, as Trump himself has in the past, raising concerns in some quarters that officials could defy court orders. 'These unlawful injunctions are a continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday. But, she added, the White House "will continue to fight those battles in court, and we expect to be vindicated." This article was originally published on
NBC News
12-02-2025
- Politics
- NBC News
This obscure law is one reason Trump's agenda keeps losing in court
WASHINGTON — Lawyers challenging President Donald Trump's aggressive use of executive power in the courts are turning to a familiar weapon in their armory: an obscure but routinely invoked federal law called the Administrative Procedure Act. While lawsuits challenging such provocative plans as ending birthright citizenship and dismantling federal agencies raise weighty constitutional issues, they also claim Trump failed to follow the correct procedures as required under the wonky 1946 statute. Trump fell afoul of the law in some high-profile cases that reached the Supreme Court during his first term, raising the possibility he could suffer the same fate this time around. Known in abbreviated form as the APA, the law allows judges to throw out federal agency actions that are "arbitrary and capricious" on various grounds, including failing to articulate why the agencies are changing policy. Much to the anger of Trump and his officials, judges have been issuing a series of orders putting administration plans on hold, including freezes on federal funding and drastic reductions in staffing. The rulings are at a preliminary stage and often do not include detailed legal reasoning. In fact, one of Trump's first losses in court in his second term — over an Office of Management and Budget memo ordering across-the-board funding freezes — was based in part on a claim brought under the APA. The administration quickly rescinded the memo, although litigation continues. "What we're seeing from the Trump administration is they are moving so fast, and they're trying to do so much with so little reasoning, and they're trying to disrupt as much as possible, as fast as possible, that these actions are inherently arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, a lawyer involved in one of the lawsuits said. One example of plaintiffs' citing the law is a case about Trump's effort to reduce biomedical research funding, which a coalition of states said"violates the Administrative Procedure Act in multiple ways." It fails to "articulate the bases" for the change and shows "disregard for the factual findings" that set the current rate, the lawsuit said. A judge blocked the policy Monday. On Tuesday, a judge cited the APA in finding that the administration most likely violated the law in removing webpages featuring medical data that health care professionals rely on. A lawsuit workers at the U.S. Agency for International Development filed last week seeking to prevent hundreds of staff members' being put on leave also raised APA claims. 'The dissolution of USAID is arbitrary and capricious in multiple respects,' the unions' lawyers argued. A judge partially granted the unions' request Friday. In another USAID-related lawsuit filed Tuesday, contractors whose funding has been cut made similar arguments. The government did not "explain why a comprehensive, undifferentiated freeze was necessary" or explain why a "more orderly and targeted approach" could not have been taken, the lawsuit said. The APA haunted Trump during his first term. In 2019, the Supreme Court found that the administration had not revealed its true reason for wanting to add a citizenship question to the census. "Reasoned decision-making under the Administrative Procedure Act calls for an explanation for agency action. What was provided here was more of a distraction," Chief Justice John Roberts wrote then. A year later, the court ruled that the administration had failed to consider various factors when it sought to unwind the Obama administration policy that protects "Dreamers" from deportation. Its actions were "arbitrary and capricious" under the APA, Roberts wrote. On both issues, Trump administration officials "were sloppy, and the court did not like that," said Jonathan Adler, a professor at Case Western Reserve University School of Law. He noted, however, that at this early stage, the administration could still fix at least some of its errors. In Trump's first term, for example, the Supreme Court ultimately upheld a revised version of a travel ban on people entering the country from mostly Muslim-majority countries after a more sweeping policy was pared back. "The fact they're sloppy out of the gate, I don't think that tells us how the courts will ultimately resolve it," Adler said. Trump is by no means the only president to have fallen afoul of the APA, which judges routinely cite in striking down federal agency actions on a wide variety of issues, including environmental and consumer regulations that agencies sometimes spend years reviewing. In a high-profile case during the Biden administration, a federal judge in Texas threw out an immigration enforcement policy that would have prioritized deporting violent criminals. Among other things, District Judge Drew Tipton found that the administration had failed to take into account evidence about the dangers of recidivism and abscondment among immigrants with criminal records that undermined its policy conclusions. The government, he added, was required "to show its work. It either failed or refused to do so. This was arbitrary and capricious." (The Supreme Court in 2023 ultimately ruled in favor of President Joe Biden, saying the states that sued did not have legal standing.) Despite the long history of courts' faulting presidents under the APA, various Trump allies, including billionaire Elon Musk, have harshly criticized judges for ruling against the administration, as Trump himself has in the past, raising concerns in some quarters that officials could defy court orders. 'These unlawful injunctions are a continuation of the weaponization of justice against President Trump," White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said in a statement Tuesday.
Boston Globe
12-02-2025
- Politics
- Boston Globe
Gutting USAID is an attack on groups that challenge dictators
Let us be clear: Killing USAID was never about saving money. In fact, the entire Trump-Musk campaign to shrink the government is not about saving money. It is about purging government agencies of meaningful independence and dissent. But it is also about catering to the MAGA movement's obsession with conspiracy theories. USAID may be only the first agency to be targeted as the result of rampant falsehoods circulating online. Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up A Advertisement On Feb. 2, the day before Musk blocked staffers from entering USAID's headquarters, Musk began responding to and amplifying dozens of tweets from small but influential accounts that churn out USAID-related conspiracy theories. One of them was held by a former Trump administration official named Mike Benz. As Zadrozny reports, over about two years Benz 'posted waves of tweets and dozens of hours of video presentations … flicking at a sprawling narrative of USAID as a covert operations division of the CIA in which staff members sought to enrich themselves, spread leftist ideology at home and abroad and harm Trump.' Advertisement It is unsurprising, then, that Elon Musk chose to describe USAID as 'criminal' and 'evil.' Demonstrators gathered on Feb. 7 to protest federal layoffs and demand that Elon Musk be fired from the Department of Government Efficiency. BRYAN DOZIER/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images Zadrozny's investigation also shows us how conspiracy theories infiltrate the mainstream, making it difficult to distinguish between valid criticism and total fiction. The Trump administration and other USAID critics are currently flooding the press with examples of USAID's so-called corrupt spending, much of which is difficult to parse without context. This deluge of misleading information has cast doubt on the agency's legitimacy in the minds of many Americans who may have USAID's Achilles heel has proved to be its 'democracy promotion' efforts, a stream of work characterized by its critics as ineffective at best, nefarious at worst. Since the 1960s and '70s, critics from Advertisement The waiting room of a local NGO in Vinnytsya, Ukraine, on Feb. 4. President Trump's administration has frozen aid from USAID. Ukrainian NGOs, which have relied on US foreign assistance since the Russian invasion, are trying to find new funds to survive. FLORENT VERGNES/AFP via Getty Images The vast majority of the US foreign aid budget, which in 2023 was There will always be disagreement on what the United States can or should fund in the way of foreign assistance. However, the right-wing criticism of USAID betrays a more disturbing worldview: It reveals a fundamental skepticism of civil society and its role in protecting human rights, a free press, and other core tenets of a functioning democracy. Advertisement Civil society is commonly understood to be a 'third sector,' as the United Nations sometimes calls it, distinct from business and government, and made up of individuals and groups that represent and advance the will of the people. USAID, being a part of the government, is not a member of civil society, but it is an important ally and funder of civil society around the world. Authoritarian and nationalist governments have a contentious relationship with civil society, given that civil society actors are often the most vocal critics of abuses of power. Traditional Russian wooden dolls depicting China's President Xi Jinping, US President Donald Trump, and Russian President Vladimir Putin displayed for sale in St. Petersburg, Russia. Dmitri Lovetsky/Associated Press The past decade's global democratic backslide has resulted in the strangling of civic space in dozens of countries. According to Freedom House, For example, I worked as a researcher for Amnesty International in India. For decades, the Indian government has seen the Advertisement Amnesty International halted its operations in India in 2020, citing reprisals by the government and the freezing of its bank accounts by Indian authorities. Aijaz Rahi/Associated Press The suspicion of civil society actors that are critical of the government, especially if they receive any kind of funding from outside the country, runs deep. I was accused more than once of being a covert CIA operative by members of the Indian military. That sort of suspicion is now motivating a MAGA movement that wants to believe US foreign aid is the product of a government that is run by a shadowy cabal that misuses the country's resources for its own diabolical ends, deliberately divorced from the will of the people. But to say that funding from international NGOs, foundations, and government agencies like USAID is suspect when it goes to groups operating in repressive environments misses an important reality. Those groups simply would not exist without foreign assistance. And without their efforts to hold autocrats and abuses of power to account, the world would be even further away from realizing its aspirations for all people to live freely and fairly. Christine Mehta can be reached at
