A federal judge on Tuesday, March 18, ruled that Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (Doge) likely violated the US Constitution by attempting to shut down USAID. The ruling orders the Trump administration to reverse some actions taken to dismantle the agency, marking a significant setback in efforts to reduce its operations.

According to The Washington Post, the court's ruling stated that shutting down the agency without congressional approval would be a clear violation of the U.S. Constitution. The judgment further mandated that USAID must return to its headquarters in the Ronald Reagan Building in Washington, D.C.

The ruling followed a lawsuit filed by several dismissed employees, who argued that the Doge's decision to dismantle the agency was in direct conflict with congressional powers. These employees contended that their rights were violated by the unilateral actions taken by the government to reduce USAID's scope.

USAID, one of the United States' key agencies for humanitarian aid and global development, has faced significant challenges in recent years. Under the Trump administration, the agency was subjected to severe budget cuts and efforts to undermine its operations. These pressures have raised concerns about the future of U.S. foreign aid and development programs.

In response to the court's ruling, Elon Musk and the Doge were compelled to halt their attempts to dismantle the agency. This legal setback highlights the ongoing tension between the executive branch and legislative bodies over the control and funding of foreign assistance programs.

As a result, USAID's future remains secure, at least for the time being. This case underscores the critical role of judicial oversight in protecting the integrity of established governmental institutions. It also marks a significant victory for those advocating for the continued importance of international development and humanitarian aid.

Meanwhile, the ruling may prompt further scrutiny of the government's approach to global assistance, with many observers emphasizing the need for a balanced and lawful approach to federal agencies' operations. This case serves as a reminder that legislative oversight and judicial intervention are key in maintaining the stability of vital U.S. institutions.

MENAFN19032025000228011069ID1109331656