The Hill: Judge deems DOGE takeover of US Institute of Peace ‘null and void’ - The judge looks like how you'd expect her to look.

Source/Archive

by Ella Lee - 05/19/25 1:52 PM ET

beryl howell.webp

A federal judge on Monday ruled that the Department of Government Efficiency’s (DOGE) takeover of the U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) was unlawful, deeming it “null and void.”

U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell found that President Trump and his subordinates used “brute force” to take over USIP’s headquarters and dissemble the independent institute, despite warnings that it did not fall within the executive branch.

The judge invalidated the removal of USIP board members and its president, meaning they retain their positions and the individuals installed by DOGE must be removed, and nullified the transfer of USIP’s headquarters to the General Services Administration (GSA), returning control to the USIP. Any USIP financial assets transferred to the GSA were also deemed void.

She also barred DOGE and other Trump administration officials named in the suit from further “trespass” on USIP’s property or within its systems.

“The President’s efforts here to take over an organization outside of those bounds, contrary to statute established by Congress and by acts of force and threat using local and federal law enforcement officers, represented a gross usurpation of power and a way of conducting government affairs that unnecessarily traumatized the committed leadership and employees of USIP, who deserved better,” the judge wrote in a 102-page opinion.

The independent institute and several removed board members sued DOGE and the other Trump officials in March, claiming they sought to unlawfully dismantle the institute and block it from completing the peace promotion work tasked to it by Congress.

Institute lawyer Andrew Goldfarb said at the time that DOGE moved at “lightning speed” and sought to reduce the organization, which was established to help resolve and prevent violent conflicts, “essentially to rubble.”

In March, the Trump administration fired much of USIP’s board and installed Kenneth Jackson, a State Department official, as its new president. Then, DOGE took over its headquarters.

In court papers, the institute and fired board members said DOGE first sought to enter the building with two FBI agents, but when they weren’t let in, agents showed up at the private residence of the institute’s chief of security to attempt to gain access. The institute’s outside counsel was also threatened with criminal investigation over the refusal.

Days later, three sets of law enforcement — D.C. Metropolitan Police, Department of State police and the FBI — showed up to help DOGE get into the building, they said. An official from a private security firm once contracted by USIP provided a key to access the building despite that contract having been revoked, aligning with DOGE under the apparent threat of losing its other government security contracts.

Howell called Congress’s restrictions on the president’s removal power of USIP board members “squarely constitutional,” making the removals and replacements completed by DOGE at the direction of Trump’s executive order undertaken by “illegitimately-installed leaders who lacked legal authority to take these actions.”

The judge noted that “no court before” has addressed exactly where USIP falls within the constitutional structure. The answer to that question could have implications for whether Trump’s removal power extends to the independent institute. She determined the institute must be considered part of the federal government but does not exercise “governmental, let alone executive” power.

USIP said in a statement that its board, management and staff look forward to restarting its programs to promote and facilitate peaceful conflict resolution around the world.

“Today’s ruling allows USIP to continue that work,” the statement read.

The institute was one of several small agencies targeted by the Trump administration. The Inter-American Foundation and U.S. African Development Foundation, which were also mentioned in a Feb. 19 executive order to downsize the bureaucracy, have also sued.

This story was updated at 4:50 p.m.
 
Why even have three branches of government? Just let the executive do what it wants without worry, frens.
This is what the Democrats do when they're in power. When Republicans are in power, the three branches are v important.
No one should do it when they're in power. That's the point, macho dancing man.
 
Last edited:
Why even have three branches of government? Just let the executive do what it wants without worry, frens.
again the genius, part about the seperation of powers is that the people who decide what to do the law makers dont have the power to do things

This pus ambitions against ambition a senator doesnt have the authority to give the military orders etc.

The idea of goverment agencies, and the fucking sham of NGOs which are goverment organizations that are dodging accountability are not in the consitution at all.

Congress can impeach trump congress can pass laws, congress can set policy how ever it wants no issue. it doesnt but it can
 
again the genius, part about the seperation of powers is that the people who decide what to do the law makers dont have the power to do things

This pus ambitions against ambition a senator doesnt have the authority to give the military orders etc.

The idea of goverment agencies, and the fucking sham of NGOs which are goverment organizations that are dodging accountability are not in the consitution at all.

Congress can impeach trump congress can pass laws, congress can set policy how ever it wants no issue. it doesnt but it can
I long for the days when Congress actually achieves something. One way or the other. Just do something, damnit!
 
No one should do it when they're in power. That's the point, macho dancing man.
If you play by rules that your opponent doesn’t abide by, then you are always destined to lose. Grandstanding on some pseudo-moral high horse is great if you want to feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it’s not going to achieve anything of value.
 
If you play by rules that your opponent doesn’t abide by, then you are always destined to lose. Grandstanding on some pseudo-moral high horse is great if you want to feel all warm and fuzzy inside, but it’s not going to achieve anything of value.
I don't think it's grandstanding if you actually stand on those morals and ethics. We need better politicians those who stand for the people they represent, and don't line their pockets, which will never happen. Yet, I'm still going to vote, today. It's the only power we have.
 
I don't think it's grandstanding if you actually stand on those morals and ethics
Unilateral disarmament against an enemy who's demonstrated his willingness to shoot you is suicidal.

It is completely principled to say, "I will abide by these principles as long as you also honour them, and abandon them as aggressively as you do."

The DoJ was weaponized under Obama and Biden, so it's appropriate to arrest and jail ten times as many Leftists as they did, then offer a principled truce backed by actual consequences. Otherwise they'll just bide their time and gulag everyone once they're back in power.
 
There are a fair number of past judicial decisions on these subjects and none of them support this judge's decision. In
Humphrey's Executor v. United States (1935), SOCUS declared that the only situations in which congress could constrain the president's ability to remove government officials was when they were in a quasi-legislative or quasi-judicial officers (for example the the head of the FTC). The institute of Peace meets neither criteria.
Seila Law LLC v. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (2020) further extended the powers of the president to remove officials in any part of the executive branch.


She determined the institute must be considered part of the federal government but does not exercise “governmental, let alone executive” power.

That determination that an institute exclusively funded by the federal government and run by an executive board appointed by the president is actually part of the government should have finished the case. But the judge here is advancing the rather novel theory the the powerless and useless nature of the agency protects it.
 
Back