Judge Rejects Argument That USAID Is Wholly Independent From State Dept, Allows Trump's Reorganization
The article discusses how Judge Nichols debunked the claim that USAID was wholly independent from the State Department, deciding that Trump's actions were within the scope of the President's authority
On February 21, 2025, US District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, dissolved a previous temporary restraining order and denied a request for a preliminary injunction, allowing the Trump administration to move forward with its plan to place thousands of USAID staffers on administrative leave which is a significant victory for the administration in its efforts to overhaul the agency. The article discusses how Judge Nichols debunked the claim that USAID was wholly independent from the State Department, deciding that Trump's actions were within the scope of the President's authority.
A few weeks ago, on February 7, 2025, Judge Nichols issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) that prevented the Trump administration's executive orders from taking effect placing USAID employees on administrative leave and evacuating workers from overseas posts. The TRO in the case American Foreign Service Association et al. v. United States was issued was granted in response to a motion filed by two unions representing USAID employees, the American Foreign Service Association (AFSA) and the American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO (AFGE) which claimed that the Trump administration's actions to place USAID employees on administrative leave and expedite their evacuation from overseas posts would cause irreparable harm, which is a requisite to issue TROs.
The two Executive Orders in question were signed on January 20 are, 1) “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” directing an immediate 90-day pause in United States foreign development assistance for assessment of programmatic efficiencies and consistency with United States foreign policy and 2) "Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce" where career federal employees are made to become accountable to the current president in office and not to other entities.
On February 13, 2025, the Judge extended the TRO until February 21, 2025, once more to allow time for a more thorough consideration of the motion for a preliminary injunction. However, after further study, Judge Nichols found that the unions representing the employees had not demonstrated that they would suffer "irreparable harm", they only presented proof of some — to be expected — financial harm and that their claims were unlikely to succeed on the merits. Thus finally, on February 21, 2025, Judge Nichols dissolved the TRO and denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs had not demonstrated that further preliminary injunctive relief was warranted.
Debunking Claims That USAID Is Independent of The State Department
Judge Carl Nichols addressed the plaintiffs' argument that USAID is an independent agency and thus cannot be unilaterally dismantled or absorbed by the State Department. The plaintiffs contended that the actions taken by the Trump administration violated a supposed statutory independence of USAID as established by the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA).
In his memorandum opinion, Judge Carl Nichols began his analysis by examining the historical and statutory context of USAID's establishment and its relationship with the State Department, noting that USAID was initially created as an arm of the State Department in 1961 through an executive order by President Kennedy. Within such a setup USAID was placed under the direct authority of the Secretary of State although a reform, the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (FARRA) would recognize USAID as an "independent establishment" outside the State Department. However, that recognition did not sever all ties with the State Department sufficiently as the plaintiff said because the FARRA explicitly stated that the USAID Administrator would remain "under the direct authority and foreign policy guidance of the Secretary of State".
The FARRA, which granted USAID its independent status, also provided the President with significant discretion to review and potentially reorganize USAID. Specifically, the FARRA required the President to submit a report to Congress within 60 days of the act's passage, outlining any proposed changes to USAID's structure or functions. This report could recommend the consolidation, streamlining, transfer, or even abolition of USAID. President Clinton's report in 1998 chose to maintain USAID as a distinct agency with a separate appropriation, but it did not eliminate the President's authority to review and reorganize the agency in the future.
The Trump administration's actions, including placing USAID employees on administrative leave and pausing foreign assistance funding, were framed as measures to review and potentially reorganize USAID's operations, not to eliminate it. Secretary Rubio, appointed as the Acting Administrator of USAID, initiated consultations with Congress regarding the reorganization of USAID's activities.
So, can the President dissolve USAID without an act of Congress? The answer would be no, but the President can certainly revamp the agency. The White House's actions are being presented as part of a broader effort to ensure that USAID's operations aligned with US foreign policy objectives. Thus, the plaintiffs were not able to demonstrate that the administration's actions were unlawful under the current statutory framework, as even the FARRA provides the President with significant discretion to review and reorganize USAID.