Appeals Court Allows Musk-Led Agency Cuts at USAID to Proceed \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal appeals court has lifted a block on further cuts to USAID by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency, ruling the moves were likely constitutional. The decision reverses a lower court’s finding that Musk held power not granted by Senate confirmation or election.
Musk’s USAID Cuts Backed by Appeals Court: Quick Looks
- Appeals court lifts ruling that blocked Elon Musk’s team from further downsizing USAID
- Judges say most cuts were approved by Trump officials, not unconstitutional
- Reverses lower court ruling that questioned Musk’s authority over federal agencies
- District court had ordered restoration of email and system access for sidelined employees
- Case reflects ongoing legal scrutiny of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)
Deep Look
A federal appeals court on Friday handed a significant win to the Trump administration and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), ruling that their ongoing restructuring of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) can continue — despite legal concerns about Musk’s authority.
The three-judge panel overturned a lower court’s preliminary injunction, finding that the government is likely to prove the cost-cutting initiative does not violate the Constitution. The majority of the cuts, the judges noted, were approved by officials confirmed under President Donald Trump, not unilaterally imposed by Musk or DOGE.
The ruling marks a legal validation of DOGE’s role, at least temporarily, and deals a blow to USAID employees and advocates who have accused Musk of executing an ideologically driven purge of the foreign aid agency.
Background: Musk, DOGE, and USAID
Appointed by President Trump to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, Elon Musk was tasked with overhauling sprawling federal agencies and slashing what the administration calls “wasteful government spending.”
Since DOGE’s creation in Trump’s second term, it has targeted several agencies for aggressive restructuring — with USAID becoming the most high-profile and controversial example.
Critics argue Musk is exercising unchecked power as a private citizen with no Senate confirmation, violating the Appointments Clause of the Constitution, which reserves such authority for elected or confirmed officials.
The issue came to a head when U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland ruled in favor of USAID staffers, blocking DOGE’s actions and requiring the administration to restore access to emails, internal systems, and other resources to affected employees.
However, Judge Chuang stopped short of ordering rehiring or fully reversing the layoffs, focusing instead on preventing further disruption pending a full legal review.
Appeals Court: Cuts Were Lawful, For Now
In their decision, the appeals panel concluded that there’s a strong likelihood the administration will succeed in arguing that the cuts were lawful because they had been signed off on by Trump-appointed officials, even if initiated by DOGE.
“There is insufficient evidence to show that the Department of Government Efficiency was acting independently of the executive branch or in violation of the separation of powers,” the court wrote.
While the judges did not dismiss constitutional concerns outright, they emphasized that DOGE’s role appeared to be advisory in this context — meaning the ultimate authority still rested with confirmed administration officials.
The panel’s decision effectively reopens the door for DOGE to continue phasing out departments and programs within USAID, pending further litigation.
Pushback from Critics and Legal Experts
The ruling has sparked renewed criticism from former USAID officials, humanitarian organizations, and constitutional law scholars, who argue that the court is underestimating the long-term implications of allowing non-confirmed figures like Musk to wield major influence over federal agencies.
“This is not about efficiency — this is about dismantling foreign aid under the guise of reform,” said one former USAID director. “Putting Elon Musk in charge of the agency’s future without Senate oversight is a serious breach of democratic norms.”
Legal experts warn that if the court’s interpretation stands, it could expand presidential power by allowing private figures or advisors to direct sweeping policy changes without congressional accountability.
What Happens Next
While Friday’s ruling lifts the immediate block on DOGE’s actions, the legal fight is far from over. Judge Chuang’s full review of the case is expected to proceed, and further appeals could follow depending on the outcome.
In the meantime, USAID staffers on administrative leave or working in reduced capacity remain in limbo, unsure of whether they will be reinstated or permanently terminated.
Musk, for his part, has not commented publicly on the ruling, though he previously defended the effort to restructure USAID as a “massive win for taxpayers” and part of a “necessary cleanup of bloated federal agencies.”
A Broader Trend in Federal Governance
This case is part of a broader effort by the Trump administration to reimagine federal bureaucracy, centralizing power in the executive branch and challenging long-standing norms of civil service independence.
DOGE has become both a symbol of that transformation and a lightning rod for controversy, especially as it continues to press for changes at agencies ranging from the Department of Education to the Environmental Protection Agency.
How the courts ultimately define DOGE’s limits — or lack thereof — may have far-reaching consequences for how presidents govern and who gets to shape federal policy in the future.
Appeals Court Allows Appeals Court Allows
You must Register or Login to post a comment.