A federal judge has temporarily blocked the Trump administration’s plan to place 2,200 employees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) on administrative leave. Judge Carl Nichols of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, appointed by President Donald Trump in 2019, issued the ruling late Friday night. The administrative leave was set to take effect at midnight, but Nichols’ order reinstated 500 employees already placed on leave and paused further orders, including the expedited evacuation of USAID personnel stationed abroad.
Nichols’ ruling will remain in effect until February 14, with a hearing scheduled for February 12. In his order, the judge stated that all reinstated employees must have access to email, payment systems, and security notifications. The unions representing USAID employees had argued that the leave orders would cause “irreparable harm,” while the judge found no evidence that the government would suffer any immediate damage from the temporary pause.
In court, attorneys for the unions—the American Foreign Service Association and the American Federation of Government Employees—described the devastating impact of the planned reduction in staff. Families were being separated, children pulled out of schools, and employees stationed abroad faced abrupt returns to the U.S. without housing, healthcare, or income. Lawyers described the situation as a “full-scale gutting” of USAID, with catastrophic consequences for employees and contractors.
Judge Nichols pressed the government’s lawyers to justify the urgency of the leave orders. When asked why Secretary of State Marco Rubio, acting as the head of USAID, needed to implement the move immediately, government attorneys did not explain. They also failed to provide evidence of the corruption and fraud allegations that President Trump and his allies have used to criticize USAID. The judge questioned the legality of Rubio’s authority over USAID, highlighting the agency’s independence from the State Department.
The Trump administration’s actions against USAID are part of a broader effort to reorganize federal agencies and curtail programs deemed wasteful or politically misaligned. USAID has faced criticism from some within the administration, who accuse it of inefficiency and mismanagement. However, development experts, lawmakers, and advocacy groups have condemned the plan, warning that it would undermine U.S. foreign policy and humanitarian efforts worldwide.
Critics argue that USAID plays a crucial role in promoting global stability through education, healthcare, and economic development. Marsha Franklin, a political analyst, described the situation as “deeply troubling,” emphasizing that USAID’s work helps prevent crises before they escalate. Advocacy groups have called on Congress to protect the agency’s budget and operations, while protests have erupted in various cities in response to the planned reductions.
The temporary relief granted by the court has provided a glimmer of hope for USAID employees, but uncertainty remains. Workers were seen removing signage from USAID’s Washington headquarters on Friday, though operations resumed following the court order. Union representatives welcomed the judge’s decision, describing it as a crucial step in safeguarding the agency’s mission and workforce.
Despite the legal setback, the administration remains resolute in its push to overhaul USAID. White House Deputy Press Secretary Harrison Fields reiterated that President Trump is determined to move forward with his agenda, dismissing the opposition as “grandstanding.” The administration’s critics, however, argue that the move undermines America’s global leadership and long-term strategic interests.
Employees stationed abroad have expressed frustration and anxiety over the sudden disruption to their lives. Many have been forced to make emergency travel arrangements, and families face an uncertain future as they await further developments. One USAID employee described the situation as “a nightmare,” adding, “At least for now, we can continue doing our jobs.”
Legal experts say the case could have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive branch and independent federal agencies. Jacob Reinhart, an administrative law scholar, noted that the outcome could set a precedent for how presidents can reshape government institutions. “It’s about more than just USAID,” Reinhart said. “It’s about ensuring that public service remains protected from political interference.”
As the February 12 hearing approaches, both domestic and international stakeholders are closely monitoring the situation. Lawmakers on Capitol Hill are reportedly drafting legislation to reinforce protections for USAID and other federal agencies. Advocates for global development stress that the agency’s work is essential for preventing conflict, reducing poverty, and promoting stability.
Luis Rodriguez, a development advocate, warned that cutting USAID’s programs could have dire consequences. “We are undermining our long-term security and influence by dismantling these efforts,” he said. “Development is not a partisan issue. It’s about promoting peace and security on a global scale.”
For now, USAID employees remain hopeful that the courts will continue to shield them from further upheaval. The upcoming hearing will be a pivotal moment in determining the agency’s future, as the debate over its role and independence intensifies. The outcome will likely shape U.S. foreign policy and the administration’s approach to government reform for years to come.
