The close collaboration between human rights organizations, NGOs, outspoken investigative journalists, committed attorneys, affected individuals, and civil society is putting increasing pressure on the Trump administration. Together, they are opposing a policy that is dismantling democratic institutions and international aid programs with unprecedented ruthlessness. A U.S. federal court has dealt a significant blow to the Trump administration and Elon Musk: The presiding judge, U.S. District Judge Theodore Chuang in Maryland, has ordered a halt to the dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) under the control of Elon Musk. The systematic dismantling of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) by the Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) most likely violates the Constitution. Judge Theodore Chuang made this decision today and halted further actions aimed at deconstructing the decades-old development and aid organization. Through his preliminary injunction, the court compels the Trump administration to restore USAID employees' access to their emails and computer systems, including for those already placed on forced leave. However, this does not yet entail a full restoration of the agency or the reinstatement of laid-off staff. The legal dispute could evolve into a major precedent: The plaintiffs, a group of USAID employees and contractors, allege that Musk and DOGE are exercising powers that, according to the Constitution, are reserved exclusively for elected officials or those confirmed by the Senate. Judge Chuang supported this argument with clear language: Musk exercises “de facto control over DOGE,” as evidenced in part by his own statements. Particularly explosive: In an online post, Musk boasted that he had “thrown USAID into the shredder” - a phrase the judge considered evidence of the aggressive approach taken against the agency.
The dismantling of USAID is part of a broader attack by the Trump administration on the U.S. foreign aid system. On the day of his inauguration, Trump signed an executive order to freeze all foreign aid spending and subject all development programs to a radical review. The official justification: many aid efforts were “inefficient, wasteful, and part of a leftist agenda.” In February, the administration took it a step further: 1,600 USAID employees in the U.S. received termination notices, while nearly all others worldwide were placed on indefinite leave. USAID - an institution that provided development work and humanitarian assistance in crisis regions for over six decades - was thus effectively dissolved. Musk, who has for months been playing a leading role in the “reorganization” of the federal apparatus, views DOGE as a kind of “purification commission” aimed at eliminating alleged mismanagement in the bureaucracy. Critics, on the other hand, see a ruthless purge that damages not only USAID but the entire foreign policy engagement of the United States. A particularly explosive aspect of the ruling is the question of Musk's role in the government. The Trump administration had previously argued that Musk was merely an advisor and did not hold any official position. Judge Chuang rejected this: Musk’s influence is “more than evident,” and his public statements and internal authority make him the de facto decision-maker at DOGE. The ruling may therefore spark a debate over the constitutionality of Musk’s influence in government. The plaintiffs welcomed the ruling as the first major victory against the dismantling of USAID. Norm Eisen, chair of the plaintiff group State Democracy Defenders Fund, called it a “milestone in the resistance against DOGE.” He sharply criticized the Trump administration: “They are conducting an operation with a chainsaw instead of a scalpel - and in doing so, they are harming not only the people who depend on USAID but also the stability of our government.” The court’s decision halts the complete dismantling of USAID for now. Whether the Trump administration will appeal or look for alternative ways to implement its plans remains to be seen. What is clear, however, is that the ruling has drawn an initial legal boundary around Musk’s influence on government policy - and could have far-reaching consequences for the administration’s next steps.
It is currently a dangerous trend when solid reporting and research are equated with “free reach for populists.” When the media retreats, it leaves the field to those who have no qualms about spreading disinformation. “Ignorance hits populists harder than any shitstorm”? No. Ignorance hits those who suffer the consequences of populist politics. The logic behind this strategy is absurd when applied to real problems. What do you tell the wrongfully deported? Those who are suddenly expelled from their country for no reason, separated from their families, stripped of their rights by political arbitrariness? “Just ignore it, and it loses its power”? The thousands of young people who adopt Trump’s rhetoric as their worldview are not radicalized because journalists expose them, but because the root causes - social inequality, lack of opportunity, far-right networks - are not being addressed. What about the people who lost their jobs due to economically disastrous decisions driven by populist politics? Does the same motto apply to them: “Don’t talk about it, and it gets better”? And often it is precisely the journalists or writers who spread such theses who have never seen a war or an uprising, never spoken with people in the darkest regions where far-right narratives are already everyday thinking. The first question an investigative journalist is asked in certain environments is not “What are you investigating?” but “Are you wearing a cross?” Because extremist groups have long developed their own mechanisms for filtering out truth-tellers. Yes, there are destructive outrage cycles that contribute little to solutions. But the answer is not silence - it is differentiated, fact-based journalism. And that begins with not being fooled by simplistic “solutions.” In an online post, Musk boasted that he had “thrown USAID into the shredder.” Luckily, it was shared.
Your support helps us defend human rights and protect the environment – especially where others look away. Thank you.
English 
German 
