A federal judge recently issued a temporary restraining order, halting the Trump administration’s initiative to effectively sideline approximately 2,700 employees of the US Agency for International Development (USAID) by placing them on paid leave and recalling many stationed abroad. The ruling poses a significant challenge to the administration’s broader effort to curtail US foreign aid and align it with its “America First” agenda.
The injunction was granted by Judge Carl J. Nichols, a Trump appointee, following a federal lawsuit filed by the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees. The lawsuit described the administration’s actions as unconstitutional and illegal, systematically dismantling USAID without congressional consent. Judge Nichols emphasized the potential “irreparable” harm that affected employees might face if deprived of key governmental support necessary for operations in high-risk areas.
The temporary restraining order remains in effect until February 14 and has immediately reinstated around 500 workers who had been furloughed. It prevents the administration from placing employees on paid leave and pulling back humanitarian workers stationed overseas. However, Judge Nichols declined other union requests, such as reopening USAID buildings or restoring funding for agency grants and contracts.
The litigation marks a significant legal confrontation against Trump and his allies, who have been advocating for an overhaul of foreign aid programs. The efforts, led notably by Elon Musk through a controversial initiative known as the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), include freezing key foreign aid programs and sidelining most USAID staff.
The decision casts doubt on plans to place global “direct hire” staff on administrative leave, which had been announced earlier in the week on USAID’s website but has since been retracted. Meanwhile, former President Trump took to social media to assert, without evidence, that substantial USAID funding had been misused through fraud.
For further developments in this ongoing legal battle, follow coverage on JURIST.