Court watch: The latest on the USAID docket

Ever since U.S. President Donald Trump returned to the White House, his administration has waged war on U.S. foreign aid. That has led to a dizzying array of legal battles — and a back-and-forth that continues to play out across Washington, D.C.’s courtrooms. There’s the case brought by USAID’s implementing partners, pushing the government to pay for work that was already contracted. Another, filed by USAID staff, challenges the sweeping terminations that upended the agency earlier this year. Then there are additional lawsuits from small and large aid entities, all caught in the administration’s crosshairs during Trump’s second term. These cases represent just a sliver of the more than 200 lawsuits filed against the Trump administration since the president returned to office, with litigation spanning from immigration to mass firings to climate policy and beyond. Here is the latest on the court cases we’re tracking, and where they stand on the legal docket to date. Editor's note: This article was last updated on Dec. 2, 2025, at 7 p.m. ET. <a id="top"></a> Browse court cases: 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#implementingpartners">The one brought by implementing partners</a> 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#usaidstaffunion">The one brought by the USAID staff union</a> 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#usaidcontractors1">The one brought by USAID contractors</a> 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#usaidcontractors2">The other one brought by USAID contractors</a> 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#usadf">The one brought by the US African Development Foundation</a> 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#usip">The one brought by the US Institute of Peace</a> 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#iaf">The one brought by the Inter-American Foundation</a> 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#ned">The one brought by the National Endowment for Democracy</a> 🔸 <a rel="noopener" target="_self" href="#deptoflabor">The one brought against the US Department of Labor</a> <h2><a id="implementingpartners">The one brought by implementing partners</a></h2> 🔸 AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition v. U.S. Department of State, and Global Health Council v. Trump. (These two cases have been joined.) 📂 Filed: Feb. 10, 2025 and Feb. 11, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Amir H. Ali, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 🔎 Background: In one of the most closely watched battles over U.S. foreign aid, a coalition of the government's implementing partners — from for-profit heavyweights to nonprofit aid organizations — is attempting to block the administration’s sweeping freeze of foreign assistance. The group is demanding that the government pay its partners for contractually obligated work, including that performed before the lawsuit was filed. 📌 Key moments of the case: • On Feb. 14, Judge Amir Ali granted a temporary restraining order requiring the government to reverse any foreign aid suspensions or pauses affecting contracts and loans predating Jan. 19. After the administration failed to act or provide proof that payments were going out, the judge ordered the government to release millions of dollars. That ruling was appealed to the Supreme Court, which sent it back to Ali. USAID continued terminating thousands of programs in the interim. • On March 10, Ali granted a preliminary injunction. Once again, he ordered the administration to pay partners for work completed before Feb. 13 and found the president lacked “unbounded power,” reaffirming that only the U.S. Congress can determine foreign aid spending. He blocked the government from withholding funds already allocated by Congress, and told the Trump administration to process payments to USAID partners at the rate of 300 payments per day. • By mid-March, the government filed a status report showing it had begun paying plaintiffs and other USAID implementers for their past work. Over 10,000 payments remained outstanding, with plaintiffs’ payments due by March 21 and the rest by April 29. Both deadlines were missed. • Halfway through April, the Trump administration got a reprieve: The court paused part of the order that required payments to nonplaintiff organizations — sparing the government from reporting on those payments. • In early May, the government stated it was still processing payments for all parties in the suit. But a dispute arose: Plaintiffs said they were still owed more than 500 payments totaling over $70 million, but the government said the number was much smaller. While some payments had begun to flow, new red tape — like the Department of Government Efficiency’s “Defend the Spend” effort — slowed things down further. • On May 13, Ali rejected the government’s request to reverse part of an earlier court order requiring payment for past work not just to plaintiffs but to nonplaintiffs, too. He found that the request lacked supporting evidence and would not aid the appeals court. Emphasizing that the case was more than a simple contract dispute, he said it challenged the government’s “blanket directives to suspend congressionally appropriated foreign aid.” • The government appealed the case to a higher court — the U.S. District Court for Washington, D.C. — in early May. The appeal centers around the constraints of impoundment, a process that’s long been used by presidents to block funding already appropriated by Congress. While Trump has long argued that the president has the power to unilaterally impound funds, for centuries, Congress has held the pursestrings of the U.S. government. And in 1974, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act to regularize that process and rein in presidential power. The appeal puts impoundment front-and-center, with the government arguing that by requiring the government to pay back its foreign aid partners, the court “impermissibly interfered” in a process that involves just the executive and legislative branches. • In early June, the organizations suing the government filed a response to that appeal, stating that the administration’s freeze on foreign assistance — and its refusal to spend money previously appropriated by Congress — was an “attack on the separation of powers.” • In mid-July, the court reiterated its position in the preliminary injunction, stating that the government must obligate the foreign assistance funds in question before Sept. 30, 2025. The judge again touched on the issue of impound and rescissions, including whether the government will proceed with what White House budget chief Russell Vought has called a “pocket rescission,” which is when the president proposes a funding clawback so late in the fiscal year that it would require Congress to act more swiftly than the typical 45 days or the funds would expire at the end of the fiscal year. “It would be quite a thing for Defendants to make the above, reiterated representations—that they understand they must, they can, they will, and they do have a plan to obligate the funds—as merely a smokescreen to buy time for a pocket recission that, aside from any statutory question, would circumvent precisely what they are representing to the courts that they are prepared to do,” wrote Judge Ali in a July 21 order. Critically, the judge also reaffirmed that defendants may not give effect to terminations issued prior to Feb. 13, 2025. That’s not new — Ali ordered such a mandate months earlier. But it continues to affirm that funding cancellations before that Feb. 13 date should, in theory, be un-canceled. Those suing the government have stated that number tallies above 460 separate contracts, grants, and cooperative agreements. • On July 31, the government stated it had five more payments to process from those suing the Trump administration, and 1,879 more payments for those outside of the lawsuit. This is for work completed before Feb. 13, 2025. • The appeals court ruled that the Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign assistance, reversing the decision from Ali. It was a 2-1 decision, with Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson, who wrote the majority opinion, stating the organizations didn’t have the legal authority to bring the lawsuit to the courts. Circuit Judge Florence Pan, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, dissented, writing that her court’s “acquiescence in and facilitation of” the Trump administration’s “unlawful behavior derails the ‘carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power’ that serves as the ‘greatest security against tyranny — the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch.’” Even so, the court did not reach the core question that’s circulating the case: whether the administration’s unilateral decision to refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress is unconstitutional. It also did not lift a preliminary injunction from Ali, which required the Trump administration to pay USAID partners for work completed before Feb. 13. • On Aug. 25, the government asked the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene, with the Department of Justice sending an emergency filing to the conservative-majority court. • On Aug. 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit rejected a petition to rehear the case, declining to stop the Trump administration from withholding foreign aid funds. For now, that decision makes Supreme Court intervention moot, and the Trump administration promptly proposed a nearly $5 billion rescission of previously approved foreign aid funds the following day. The appeals judges did revise their earlier decision on whether the plaintiffs had the legal right to sue, opening an opportunity for them to go back to the district court. On Sept. 3, Judge Ali of the D.C. District Court granted a new preliminary injunction, requiring the Trump administration to spend congressionally appropriated foreign assistance funding. The administration can still decide how to spend the money, but it cannot decide whether or not to spend the money, including through the recent “pocket” rescission the administration sent to Congress with insufficient time to respond before funds would expire, the injunction states. • The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court to intervene to block Ali’s Sept. 3 preliminary injunction, and on Sept. 9, Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts agreed to temporarily suspend that order while the full court hears the case. That effectively pauses the lower court’s requirement that the administration spend the funds they asked Congress to rescind, with limited time to act before they expire. • On Sept. 26, the Supreme Court sided with the administration, allowing it to pause a lower court order that would have required $4 billion in foreign assistance funds to be obligated before they expire on Sept. 30, as mandated by law. Still, it noted that the decision “was not a final determination on the merits” of the case, according to the firm representing the plaintiffs, Public Citizen. The government then pushed the court to dismiss the case, but the court never filed a motion on that dismissal. Now, it’s been put on hold while the appeals court continues to look at the case. ⚡ The latest: On Dec. 1, the government reported that they had 1,500 payments yet to be processed for work completed before Feb. 13, 2025. All but four of which were from organizations outside of the lawsuit. 🔜 What’s next: The appeals court is continuing to weigh whether the district court “erred in entering a preliminary injunction.” Briefings are due from all parties in December, January, and February. After that, the court is expected to review the filings and decide whether to hear oral arguments or issue a ruling based solely on the written record. ⬆️ <a href="#top">Back to court case list</a> <h2><a id="usaidstaffunion">The one brought by the USAID staff union</a></h2> 🔸 American Federation of Government Employees v. Trump. 📂 Filed: Feb. 6, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Carl J. Nichols, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 🔎 Background: Filed by the American Federation of Government Employees and the American Foreign Service Association, this case challenges the constitutionality of the Trump administration's decision to place thousands of USAID staff on administrative leave, with more terminations reportedly planned. Oxfam America later joined as a plaintiff. Despite a temporary restraining order that initially delayed those actions, a subsequent request for a preliminary injunction was denied, allowing staff reductions to proceed. 📌 Key moments of the case: • Members of Congress, former national security officials, and humanitarian groups submitted amicus curiae, or “friends of the court,” briefs warning of security and humanitarian fallout from the USAID cuts. • In mid-March, plaintiffs filed for summary judgment and requested an expedited schedule. In early April, the government countered with a motion to dismiss or seek summary judgment. • On May 30, the judge asked the parties to weigh in on whether a recent appeals court ruling — about another case involving the U.S. Agency for Global Media, and the limits of a court’s power to block personnel decisions — has any legal impact on his case. • On July 25, the judge dismissed this case and a similar suit brought by the Personal Services Contractor Association, which represents more than 1,000 contractors previously at USAID. In a 37-page opinion, the judge stated that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims and that the organizations should use other avenues to address the firings. • The organizations filed an appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court on Aug. 5. ⚡ The latest: The Court of Appeals ordered briefings in November, December, and January. After that, the court is expected to review the filings and decide whether to hear oral arguments or issue a ruling based solely on the written record. <h2><a id="usaidcontractors1">The one brought by USAID contractors</a></h2> 🔸 Personal Services Contractor Association v. Trump. 📂 Filed: Feb. 18, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Carl Nichols, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 🔎 Background: The Personal Services Contractor Association, or PSCA, which represents more than 1,000 personal services contractors formerly at USAID, claims their termination is unconstitutional. The association sought a temporary restraining order to reinstate the workers. 📌 Key moments of the case: • On March 6, Judge Carl Nichols denied the temporary restraining order, or TRO, request, citing a lack of irreparable harm. He noted the issue was primarily contractual and better handled by the board of contract appeals or the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. • Nichols also rejected a further TRO request aimed at preventing the destruction of evidence, after USAID stated that shredded documents were either duplicates or not legally required to be preserved. • In late April, PSCA filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, arguing that the situation had escalated, with notices going out that USAID would cease to exist as an independent agency, and most staff roles would be eliminated by July or September. That filing included nearly 100 exhibits offering evidence. • On May 7, the government argued that the court lacks jurisdiction and that this is a contract dispute. It said the plaintiff had not shown sufficient standing to bring the case forward and that claims under the Administrative Procedures Act don’t apply because the statutes in question give the agency broad discretion. On May 15, PSCA argued that there is additional evidence and the legal arguments in the case are now more developed. It urged the court to grant a preliminary injunction. • On May 30, the judge asked the parties to weigh in on whether a recent appeals court ruling — about another case involving the U.S. Agency for Global Media, and the limits of a court’s power to block personnel decisions — has any legal impact on his case. • On July 25, the judge dismissed this case and a similar suit brought by the American Foreign Service Association, which represented thousands of direct hires at USAID. In a 37-page opinion, the judge stated that the court lacked jurisdiction over the claims and that the organizations should use other avenues to address the firings. • The organizations filed an appeal to the D.C. Court of Appeals on Aug. 7. ⚡ The latest: The Court of Appeals ordered briefings in November, December, and January. Oral arguments have not yet been scheduled for this case. After that, the court is expected to review the filings and decide whether to hear oral arguments or issue a ruling based solely on the written record. ⬆️ <a href="#top">Back to court case list</a> <h2><a id="usaidcontractors2">The other one brought by USAID contractors</a></h2> 🔸 J. Does 1-26 v. Musk. 📂 Filed: Feb. 13, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Theodore Chuang, U.S. District Court in Maryland. 🔎 Background: A group of anonymous former and current USAID employees filed a lawsuit against Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency, or DOGE, alleging they decimated USAID without the authority to do so. Additional defendants were later added. 📌 Key moments of the case: • Judge Theodore Chuang ruled on March 18 that DOGE’s actions to shutter USAID were “likely” unconstitutional. While the ruling didn’t reinstate terminated programs or staff, it barred DOGE and Musk from taking any action to shut down USAID, including firing staff or canceling contracts. The effect of the ruling is limited because it cleared the way for staffing, funding, and facility-related decisions to continue, as long as they are approved by officials with the proper authority, including the Secretary of State and Acting USAID Administrator Marco Rubio. • Shortly thereafter, DOGE staffer Jeremy Lewin was appointed USAID’s deputy administrator for policy and programs and its chief operating officer. The judge extended the order to include him. • Musk and DOGE appealed. On March 28, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit ordered a stay, or pause, of Chuang’s ruling pending resolution of the appeal. The appellate panel said Musk’s role was “unconventional” but not clearly unconstitutional. Judge Marvin Quattlebaum, with Judge Paul Niemeyer concurring, said Musk did not act as an officer of the government but a presidential adviser and there was not sufficient evidence to prove that he directed the closure of the USAID building and the closure of its website without the involvement of officials with the appropriate authority to do so. • In early May, DOGE filed a motion to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing it failed to state a valid claim and that the court lacked jurisdiction. On May 27, the judge denied the plaintiff’s motion for expedited evidence sharing, which had sought to compel Musk and the Trump administration to produce documents and make officials available for depositions. He said that the plaintiffs failed to meet the necessary legal requirements. • On Aug. 13, the judge dismissed the claims against Trump, but rejected the government’s overarching motion to dismiss the case. • On Aug. 18, a federal judge ruled that USAID employees can pursue a class action claim against Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency, the budget-slashing office that fired nearly all the agency’s employees earlier this year. The ruling came after the Supreme Court limited the use of universal injunctions, prompting advocates to turn to class action litigation for federal workers affected by mass reductions-in-force. With a class action lawsuit, multiple people can sue on behalf of a larger group with similar claims — giving the individuals a stronger collective voice than they might have if pursuing such claims on their own. ⚡ The latest: Those suing Musk and DOGE attempted to bring the billionaire to court to testify, along with former State Department foreign aid head Peter Marocco, and the next official who took that role, Jeremy Lewin. The government shot back in late November, filing a motion for a protective order for all three men, and claiming the plaintiffs could not demonstrate the “exceptional circumstances” needed for those depositions to occur. ⬆️ <a href="#top">Back to court case list</a> <h2><a id="usadf">The one brought by the US African Development Foundation</a></h2> 🔸 Brehm v. Marocco et al. 📂 Filed: March 6, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Richard J. Leon, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 🔎 Background: Trump’s February executive order aimed to dissolve several small aid entities: the U.S. African Development Foundation, or USADF, the Inter-American Foundation, or IAF, and the U.S. Institute of Peace, or USIP. He declared them “unnecessary” and directed their reduction to “statutory requirements.” Over the next few weeks, chaos ensued at all three — with the administration sacking board members and installing top Trump officials in their place. DOGE staff entered every agency, gutting most contracts and staff. At the heart of each lawsuit lies the question: Did Trump and his administration have the authority to dismantle each of these agencies? 📌 Key moments of the case: • USADF made headlines on March 5 when its staff blocked DOGE from entering their offices. Trump had already appointed Peter Marocco, then-director of the State Department’s Office of Foreign Assistance, as president and board chair of the agency — and the next day, DOGE made it through the doors. Hours later, the agency’s president, Ward Brehm, filed a suit against DOGE, stating the office had launched a “full-on assault against USADF.” • That night, Brehm secured a temporary restraining order preventing his removal, and the court blocked Marocco’s appointment pending Senate confirmation. • The judge cleared the way for the Trump administration to shift the leadership of USADF and significantly downsize its operations — stating that Brehm would not suffer “irreparable harm.” Even so, the judge stated that he had found no existing statutes that would permit temporary appointments, such as Trump’s appointment of Marocco, to USADF’s board. • On March 21, Brehm’s team filed a request for a preliminary injunction against Marocco and DOGE, challenging the Trump administration for what Brehm described as an “unlawful” attempt to dismantle USADF. • On May 21, Rural Development Innovations Limited — a Lusaka-based consulting firm that receives 100% of its funding from USADF — filed a lawsuit of their own against the Trump administration’s dismantling of the agency. Two former long-time employees of USADF joined the suit, stating that Marocco had “destroyed the ability of USADF to perform its congressionally aligned mission.” • Despite the court findings, Marocco continued to make changes at the now-battered agency. As of mid-May, DOGE had canceled all but 100 of USADF’s 530-grant portfolio, though termination notices are going to partners without USADF staff knowledge, making a true count hard to ascertain. By that time, only two staff members were actively working at the agency, with the other 98% of USADF’s staff now terminated or placed on administrative leave, according to an official familiar with the matter. • On June 10, the judge denied Brehm’s motion for summary judgment, stating that Brehm “lacked standing” to challenge Marocco’s appointment, and that because the Trump administration tried to fire the board members who appointed Brehm prior to them doing so, he “never lawfully held the position.” • The case brought by Rural Development Innovations Limited continued forward, but at the end of June, Marocco posted on X that USADF was canceling some 50 additional grants, clearing out his social media account and posting that his account is now the communications channel for USADF. • On July 1, the judge found that Trump’s installation of Marocco as head of USADF was likely unconstitutional, siding with Rural Development Innovations Limited. Three days later, Marocco posted a meme with the first U.S. president, George Washington, crossing a river during the American Revolutionary War, with text overlaying the image stating: “But sir a district court judge just ruled that we can’t do this.” • On July 29, a joint status report submitted by both parties indicated that the Trump administration intends to file a motion narrowing the scope of the court’s preliminary injunction, which had barred Marocco from acting as chairperson of USADF. ⚡ The latest: In November, the judge granted that motion, stating that a similar Supreme Court decision had made his district court reconsider. The injunction will now only stop the defendants from carrying out or enforcing directives issued by Marocco in his role as acting chair and president of the foundation, and only to the extent those directives affect one plaintiff, Rural Development Innovations Limited. Every other organization that might have been protected by that preliminary injunction is no longer covered, and the court’s July 1 order is now vacated. 🔜 What’s next: All parties are required to provide a status report to the court by early December, and inform the court on how they would like to proceed with the case. ⬆️ <a href="#top">Back to court case list</a> <h2><a id="usip">The one brought by the US Institute of Peace</a></h2> 🔸 United States Institute of Peace v. Jackson et al. 📂 Filed: March 18, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Beryl A. Howell, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 🔎 Background: In February, the Trump administration issued an executive order to dissolve several small aid entities: USADF, IAF, and USIP. The order labeled them “unnecessary” and directed that they be reduced to their “statutory requirements.” In the following weeks, disorder took hold at all three institutions. The administration sacked board members and replaced them with Trump appointees. DOGE staff entered each agency, slashing contracts and eliminating staff. Each lawsuit centers on the same question: Did the president and his administration have the authority to dismantle each of these agencies? 📌 Key moments of the case: • In mid-March, the White House informed nearly all of USIP’s board members that they would be terminated — except for three senior Trump officials already on the board: Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, and President of the National Defense University Peter Garvin. These three voted to oust the institute’s president, George Moose, and replace him with Kenneth Jackson, then a deputy administrator at USAID. • Days later, DOGE staffers, accompanied by FBI agents, attempted to enter the USIP headquarters but were blocked. That weekend, FBI agents visited USIP leaders’ homes. DOGE returned days later and, after a standoff involving Washington, D.C., police, it took control of the building. • The institute sued the following day, claiming the Trump administration had committed a “lawless assault” on USIP. A federal judge denied USIP’s request for a temporary restraining order, allowing the government to continue dismantling the institution. • By April 1, nearly all of USIP’s 300 staff had been terminated. The Trump administration replaced Jackson with 28-year-old DOGE staffer Nate Cavanaugh, who immediately ordered the transfer of USIP’s headquarters to the government. A federal judge later approved the move, citing that the transfer had already been processed by the government. • Ten days later, a new case emerged — this time brought by USIP’s own employees and contractors. They alleged they were suffering “ongoing irreparable harm” and asked the court “to stop the bloodletting of USIP,” which they claimed had been “co-opted” by the Trump administration. • After a hearing on May 14, the judge ruled in favor of USIP, stating that Trump’s efforts to dissolve the organization violated constitutional law and represented a “gross usurpation of power” by the president. Staff were brought back into the organization. • On May 21, the defendants appealed the decision to the D.C. Circuit Court. They also filed a request to stay or pause the judge’s ruling, which was later denied. • On June 27, a three-judge motions panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals granted the government’s request for a stay, pending appeal of the district court’s earlier ruling. If the stay is implemented, it’s not clear if USIP will be able to survive — despite the earlier ruling by the district judge. Two days later, USIP asked the full appeals court to step in so they can hold onto their headquarters and authority while the government challenges the judge’s ruling against them. • On July 11, the Trump administration fired the 200 employees remaining at USIP, firing all but a handful of staff — the latter of which were instructed to continue winding down USIP. Days later, Congress approved a rescissions request, one that will clawback $15 million of congressionally approved funding from USIP. The U.S. Court of Appeals then denied USIP’s request to hold a review of the June 17 decision. • On Sept. 29, the appeals court ordered that the case be put on pause until the Supreme Court decided in another legal matter: one brought by the former Federal Trade Commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. • In October, two amicus briefs were filed in defense of the USIP: one from former senior American national security officials, and the other from current and former members of Congress. In the first brief, the officials wrote that the executive branch’s “seizure” of USIP, without a hint of explanation of due process, violated the country’s separation of powers; in the second, the officials stated the Trump administration’s actions undermined “constitutional prerogatives.” • Soon after, USIP filed a motion asking the court to resume the case, stating that holding it “adds many months to what was an expedited schedule,” “threatening the complete dismantling of USIP” during the appeal process. The government promptly filed a response against that motion. ⚡ The latest: On Nov. 26, the judge denied USIP’s motion to resume the case. The Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in Trump vs Slaughter on Dec. 8, making movement on USIP’s case unlikely for months. ⬆️ <a href="#top">Back to court case list</a> <h2><a id="iaf">The one brought by the Inter-American Foundation</a></h2> 🔸 Aviel v. Gor et al. 📂 Filed: March 17, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Loren L. Alikhan, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 🔎 Background: This case stems from the same February executive order that targeted USADF, IAF, and USIP. The Trump administration labeled the agencies “unnecessary” and directed them to be reduced to their “statutory requirements.” Over the next few weeks, chaos ensued. Trump officials replaced leadership, and DOGE personnel slashed budgets and staffing. The central legal issue: Did the president have authority to dismantle these entities? 📌 Key moments of the case: • In late February, the Inter-American Foundation was notified that Trump had appointed Peter Marocco as acting board chair, and that no other board members remained. Marocco then held an “emergency board meeting” outside of IAF’s building — which he couldn’t enter — where he voted himself as acting president and CEO of the foundation. Soon after, most of IAF’s employees were terminated, along with almost all of IAF’s grants. • IAF President and CEO Sara Aviel filed a suit in March, seeking to prevent her removal and to block Marocco or any other unconfirmed appointee from taking her place without Senate confirmation. She also sought to reverse the terminations and program cuts. • In early April, the federal judge temporarily halted the administration’s actions and rolled back many of Marocco’s decisions. Aviel was reinstated as IAF’s president. The Trump administration quickly appealed, asking a higher court to delay enforcement of the judge’s order during the appeal process. • In early June, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals sided with Aviel, stating that she rightfully remains the CEO of the IAF, and that it was “unlikely that either the President or Marocco permissibly removed Aviel.” • In early July, the Trump administration argued that the district court had “erred” in issuing a preliminary injunction that barred Marocco from serving as IAF’s president. • In August, the judge ruled that the Trump administration unlawfully fired Sara Aviel from her position as head of IAF — and as a result, was “without legal effect.” The judge declared that Aviel remained the “rightful” president and chief executive officer of the organization, and that she may only be removed “by a properly constituted Board of the IAF.” The judge also ordered that Marocco is legally prohibited from serving as an acting board member of IAF board, and cannot carry out any of the duties of that position “in any way, shape, or form.” This case is now closed. ⬆️ <a href="#top">Back to court case list</a> <h2><a id="ned">National Endowment for Democracy v. United States of America.</a></h2> 📂 Filed: March 5, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Dabney Langhorne Friedrich, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 🔎 Background: The National Endowment for Democracy, or NED, sued the Trump administration for blocking its access to nearly $240 million in congressionally approved funds. Established by Congress in the 1980s, NED promotes democracy through four core institutions: the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs, the International Republican Institute, the Solidarity Center, and the Center for International Private Enterprise. By providing nearly 2,000 grants to those four institutions, NED draws on the two major U.S. political parties, the labor movement, and the business community to spur democracy. As Trump’s foreign aid freeze took hold, NED stated that the administration had “wrongfully denied” $167 million in obligated funds and refused to release another $72 million already appropriated by Congress. That cash is not channeled through the typical foreign assistance mechanisms but via another appropriation in the State Department — Title I — an argument that pushed NED’s case forward in court. 📌 Key moments of the case: • NED filed its suit on March 5, stating the funding block had already forced it to furlough staff and halt grant payments. The lawsuit emphasized the distinction between its Title I funds and the foreign assistance appropriations targeted by Trump’s freeze. • Five days later, NED regained access to its Title I funds. The organization stated it was a “partial restoration of funding” that allowed it to begin “stabilizing its operations and resume grantmaking.” • Over the next several weeks, the legal fight continued over whether NED would receive the remainder of its funding. By the end of April, the State Department’s bureau responsible for the NED funds had received “only a small portion of the total amount” appropriated by Congress for this fiscal year. By March 31, NED learned that the White House’s budget office had only apportioned a subset of the endowment’s full-year appropriation: $26 million out of $172 million, one month’s worth of funds. From then until now, the allocation of those funds has continued as such, in comparison to the typical allotment: one appropriation for the entire year of funding. • Meanwhile, NED’s four core institutions have struggled. Despite incoming funds from NED, most of their USAID- and State Department-funded programs had been cut. Even the International Republican Institute — which had long enjoyed bipartisan backing and once included Marco Rubio on its board — has been badly weakened by both the foreign aid cuts and delays to NED disbursements. • NED came under fire — once again — in Trump’s budget proposal for fiscal year 2026. The president proposed eliminating the entire endowment, alleging that NED had been used to call for “prosecutions of allies of the President,” attack the vice president as “foreign propagandists of the Russian Federation,” and fund an index that blacklisted conservative media outlets. NED rejected all of those claims in a statement. • On June 11, NED was told that the government had decided to withhold the $95 million balance of funding appropriated for the organization for the rest of the year — one-third of NED’s annual funding. In the weeks that followed, NED was forced to cut its workforce by 35% and terminate initiatives. • On July 21, the NED asked the court to grant a preliminary injunction against the government, one that would stop the Trump administration from “withholding or otherwise interfering with” NED’s congressionally mandated funding. “Unless this Court steps in, Defendants’ unlawful impoundment threatens immediate and irreparable harm to the Endowment’s ability to fulfill the mission that Congress expects it to pursue,” wrote the lawyers representing NED in the latest court filing. • On Aug. 11, the judge blocked the Trump administration from withholding funding from NED, ordering the release of $95 million in federal funds to the organization — accounting for roughly 30% of NED’s annual budget. The judge stated that the government has “likely unlawfully frozen” the endowment’s funding, and that NED will suffer “irreparable harm” with legal action. • In October, the government appealed this case to the D.C. Circuit Court. ⬆️ <a href="#top">Back to court case list</a> <h2><a id="deptoflabor">The one brought against the US Department of Labor</a></h2> 📂 Filed: April 15, 2025. ⚖️ Judge: Beryl A. Howell, U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C. 🔎 Background: The Solidarity Center — one of NED’s core institutes — sued the U.S. Department of Labor alongside two other organizations for what it called the “unlawful termination” of labor rights programs. The center alone lost all 11 of its Department of Labor-funded projects, totaling $80 million across 15 countries. 📌 Key moments of the case: • The Solidarity Center, American Institutes for Research, and Global March Against Child Labour sued the Department of Labor on April 15. The filing said that the Department’s Bureau of International Labor Affairs, or ILAB — the largest funder of programs to combat child and forced labor across the world — had seen sweeping program cuts as a result of DOGE-imposed reductions. • In June, Howell released an opinion denying the organizations’ request for emergency relief and rejecting the government’s attempt to throw out the case. She agreed that the federal court will continue to hear the arguments, but that more information is needed to proceed. ⬆️ <a href="#top">Back to court case list</a>