Lawsuit seeks to reinstate USAID contractors, claiming irreparable harm

A new lawsuit is pushing the Trump administration to reinstate USAID’s personal service contractors — stating that both the foreign aid freeze and stop-work order have caused “irreparable injury” to those staff members. These contractors, referred to in the court documents as USPSCs, perform typical USAID functions but are hired through a separate federal acquisition mechanism. They were some of the first to be removed from the agency weeks ago, and as the U.S. Agency for International Development has continued to be dismantled, their ranks have continued to dissolve. There are more than 1,000 PSCs who work at USAID, the majority of which have already lost their jobs, been locked out of their accounts, or been suspended from the agency. On Wednesday morning, hundreds more PSCs received generic termination notices — emails that did not explain why staff had been terminated or even include their names, according to a court filing for another related case. “While direct-hire employees have been placed on administrative leave, USPSCs have in many cases received no information about their status, while finding themselves cut off from all USAID computer networks and locked out of USAID headquarters,” states the complaint, which was filed by the Personal Services Contractor Association on Feb. 18. “Many USPSCs remain locked out of their U.S. Government email accounts, do not know the status of their employment, and do not know whether they will be reimbursed for significant reimbursable expenses.” While a previous court order temporarily halted USAID’s direct hire employees from being placed on administrative leave, this new lawsuit focuses specifically on PSCs. It calls for the administration to reinstate these employees and reimburse for back pay, while also pushing the courts to declare the administration’s foreign aid freeze — and the resulting dismantling of USAID — illegal. “The Defendants’ aim is not to pause foreign aid,” states the complaint. “It is to devastate and eliminate it and the federal agencies, employees, and contractors who provide it.” The court filings include the testimonies of several PSCs, many of whom have no idea if they still have a job after being abruptly cut off from their USAID emails, accounts, and other systems nearly three weeks ago. Those in active conflict zones, one PSC said, have had it even worse: PSCs in Ukraine and Somalia have lost access to safety communication channels coordinated by the U.S. Embassy, along with safety applications installed on their government-furnished equipment. Others said they were out tens of thousands of dollars in approved expenses, including back pay for work completed before the stop-work order began. And still others spoke about having their name and address posted on the Department of Government Efficiency’s website — an example of a cost-cutting measure implemented by the government-slashing agency. “I have locked my and my spouse’s credit, purchased a subscription to remove personal data from various websites online, purchased a home security camera, informed neighbors of a possible threat to me and to call me or the police if they notice any unusual activity around my home,” one of those PSCs stated in their testimony. To back up the case, the Personal Services Contractor Association references an ongoing suit brought by USAID staff unions earlier this month, which — albeit temporarily — has paused mass administrative leaves of the agency’s direct hires. “Judge Nichols has already entered a TRO [temporary restraining order] expressly protecting USAID direct hires. Judge Ali has already entered a TRO protecting contracting partners and grant recipients,” a related court document states. “This Court should grant a TRO expressly protecting USPSCs, who work in the same settings as, face the same or greater perils as, and often do the same work as direct hires, and then set a briefing schedule, and a hearing (if necessary) on whether to convert the TRO to a preliminary injunction.” By 5 p.m. tomorrow, Feb. 20, the parties agreed to file a joint status report to decide whether a hearing on this motion is necessary, and if so, set the date for such a hearing.