A landmark ruling by U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang has halted Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from further dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), deeming their actions “likely unconstitutional” under the Appointments Clause and separation of powers.
The decision marks the first judicial check on Musk’s controversial role as a senior adviser to President Trump, whose administration had claimed he lacked formal authority to direct federal agencies. The administration previously argued in court that Musk was merely a senior adviser with no greater authority than other White House advisers, and that he cannot independently make governmental decisions.
Chuang’s 68-page opinion, issued in response to a lawsuit by 26 USAID employees and contractors, found Musk’s DOGE team had unilaterally shuttered the agency’s headquarters, terminated 1,600 staff, and rescinded 83% of its contracts without congressional or Senate-approved oversight. The judge ordered the reinstatement of email and payment systems for affected workers and barred DOGE from deleting agency materials or closing offices without explicit authorisation from a legally appointed USAID official.
The ruling hinges on whether Musk’s DOGE role constitutes a “principal officer” position requiring Senate confirmation under the Appointments Clause. While the Trump administration argued Musk was merely a presidential adviser, Chuang cited evidence—including Musk’s public boasts about putting USAID into a “wood chipper”—to assert he had exercised de facto authority akin to an appointed officer.
The judge noted similar unilateral actions at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau and Department of Agriculture, where DOGE allegedly bypassed agency leadership.
Critics argue the administration’s stance risks undermining constitutional checks. “If presidents could evade the Appointments Clause by empowering advisers to act as de facto officers, the clause would become a hollow formality,” Chuang wrote. His injunction preserves the “status quo” to prevent irreversible harm to USAID’s operations and the public interest.
The case intersects with ongoing legal challenges to DOGE’s activities, including lawsuits alleging violations of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) and privacy laws. A coalition of 14 states has separately sued, claiming Musk’s role creates “chaos and confusion” in federal governance. While Chuang’s ruling applies specifically to USAID, it sets a precedent for scrutinising DOGE’s influence across agencies.
Furthermore, the decision has intensified tensions between the judiciary and the executive branch. Trump allies have criticised Chuang, an Obama appointee, while the president and Musk have promoted rhetoric about impeaching judges who rule against their policies.
As the case proceeds, legal experts warn that DOGE’s unchecked authority could erode Congress’s role in overseeing federal agencies. The administration has yet to indicate whether it will comply with the injunction or appeal.