ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
Chart of Potential Illegality by Elon Musk and/or DOGE
Prepared by Serapia Kim, Semmie Lee, Liam Lemay-Fruchter, Maggie Maser, Rachel Sondkar, Derek Yeghiazarian, Alejandro Camacho, and the Center for Progressive Reform
2
Suggested citation: Online Tool, Serapia Kim, Semmie Lee, Liam Lemay-Fruchter, Maggie Maser, Rachel Sondkar, Derek Yeghiazarian, Alejandro Camacho, and Center for Progressive Reform,
Unmasking DOGE (May 24, 2025), https://progressivereform.org/tracking-trump-2/#unmasking-doge-tracker
3
ClaimsStatutory or Constitutional ProvisionCurrent Court Cases That Raise or Challenge ClaimsReports, Media, & Other SourcesNotes
4
5
DOGE General ConcernsFederal Advisory Committee Act (FACA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 1001 et seq. FACA Lawsuit: Public Citizen, SDDF, and AFGE v. Trump (complaint filed 1/20/25) (Ps' voluntary dismissal)
• Public Citizen explains, "[w]ith DOGE mutating into something much more than an advisory committee, we voluntarily dismissed the case in early March."		CRS Report - DOGE Executive Order: Early Implementation (2/6/25)New York City Pension Funds Plan to Sue Tesla Over Musk’s DOGE Leadership (NYT). But insofar as the board of directors do not allege Musk violated his duties of loyalty or care to his company, it would be difficult for the shareholders to bring a lawsuit against Musk over his leadership of DOGE (Prof. Ann Lipton).
6
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C.§ 706 et seq.FACA Lawsuit: Democracy Forward v. OMG, DOGE (filed 1/20/25)Governing For Impact: Issue Brief (Feb 2025)
7
FACA Lawsuit: National Security Counselors v. DOGE (filed 1/20/25)POLITICO: What Musk’s ‘special’ DOGE employment status means (2/6/25)
8
FACA Lawsuit: American Public Health Association v. OMB (complaint filed 1/20/25)Biological Diversity OMG, DOGE Demand Letter (1/28/25)
9
FACA Lawsuit: Lentini v. DOGE (complaint filed 1/20/25)DOGE AI Deregulation Decision Tool (PowerPoint Presentation)
• Objective: analyze roughly 200,000 federal regulations to determine which can be eliminated because they are no longer required by law. Roughly 100,000 of those rules would be deemed worthy of trimming.
• The tool has already been used to complete decisions on 1,083 regulatory sections at HUD and write 100% of deregulations at CFPB.
10
FACA Lawsuit: Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Department of Interior (complaint filed 3/3/25)Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats led Committee Democrats in introducing a Resolution of Inquiry to investigate DOGE. (3/4/25)
11
FACA Lawsuit: Citizens Against Donald Trump, Inc. v. Trump (complaint filed 3/13/25)DOGE uses AI tool aiming to cut 50% of federal regulations under Trump - The Washington Post (7/26/25)
A DOGE AI Tool Called SweetREX Is Coming to Slash US Government Regulation (8/14/2025)
12
See also Just Security: Litigation Tracker PSI Report: THE $21.7 BILLION BLUNDER: Analyzing the Waste Generated by DOGE
13
See also NYT Litigation Tracker
14
15
Violation of the Appointment ClauseConstitution Article II, § 2, Clause 2New Mexico v. Musk, 1:25-cv-00429 (DC Dist Court) (complaint filed 2/13/25) (order denying TRO filed 2/18/25) (memorandum opinion filed 5/27/25)
• Judge Chutkan: Trump's EO establishing DOGE "provides no statutory or Constitutional basis for establishing the principle DOGE entity."

Judge orders DOGE, Musk to turn over documents, answer written questions (3/12/25)

Declaration of Joshua Fisher, 1:25-cv-00429		(Sub)Delegating National Security Powers (Law Review Article)Musk is acting and wielding power over the government as a principal officer that would need Senate confirmation or the Senate must have vested appointment of an inferior officer in the Executive.

If an official carries out the duties that suggest policymaking authority, then SCOTUS may consider them to be officers of the United States.

Article II does not allow Presidents to unilaterally substitute either themselves or their aides for officers to whom a statute has delegated certain powers. Article II does not allow either the President or his aides to suspend substantive laws.
16
Obama Statement on H.R. 1473 § 2262 (2011)Doe 1-26 v. Musk, 8:25-cv-00462-TDC, (MD Dist Court) (2/13/25) Declaration: Musk is an employee of WHO, not DOGE; advisor to the President and an SGE.

Arguments Against Appointment Clause Violation:
Short-term appointments cannot be considered an officer. Pushing on this may cause issues for future transitions of administrations.

Musk analogous to Chief of Staff (proxy and not an officer), so is not covered by Appointment Clause. But Musk is directing a team that is making significant, policy-driven operational changes, not merely advising the President or speaking on the President's behalf to officials.

The executive power includes some inherent power to sub-delegate/enlist aides. But these actions cannot be an end run around the Appointments clause.
17
3 U.S.C. §301: General authorization to delegate functions; publication of delegations Ps did not show immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage.
Ds concede there is no apparent “source of legal authority granting [DOGE] the power” to take some of the actions challenged.
Ps legitimately call into question what appears to be the unchecked authority of an unelected individual and an entity that was not created by Congress and over which it has no oversight.
18
Suggests that OLC's longstanding position is that "the President may not delegate 'inherent' powers conferred on her by the Constitution, including her Commander-in-Chief powers, but may establish 'formal or informal arrangements' that empower others to make military decisions in times of emergency." (p. 2060)
19
20
Conflicts of InterestStandards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive BranchU.S Office of Government Ethics: Analyzing Potential Conflicts of InterestOn Feb. 7, Barron’s filed separate OGE requests with the OMB and the WH, seeking a copy of any conflict of interest waivers provided to Musk. OMB OGC replied that “OMB has no responsive documents to provide.” That is likely because his role doesn’t report to OMB.
21
18 U.S.C. § 208: Acts affecting a personal financial interest Adam Schiff's letter to Susan Wiles, White House Chief of Staff (2/10/25)Potential issues w/ Musk’s OpenAI bid.
22
5 U.S.C. § 3161(i)(4): Employment and compensation of employeesUSA Today: Elon Musk has to fill out a public financial disclosure, legal experts say. Where is it? (2/14/25) SGEs are exempted from certain conflict-of-interest prohibitions set forth in Chapter 11 of the Criminal Code. See 18 U.S.C. §§ 203(c), 205(c);
23
18 U.S.C. § 202: For the purpose of sections 203, 205, 207, and 208, an SGE is an officer or employee of the executive branch who is retained, designated, appointed, or employed to perform, with or without compensation, temporary duties for a period of time not to exceed one hundred and thirty days during any period of three hundred and sixty-five consecutive days.Mother Jones: “Elon Musk Is a Walking Conflict of Interest” (2/14/25)
24
18 U.S.C. § 203: Compensation to Members of Congress, officers, others in matters affecting the Government The Atlantic: Elon Musk is President (2/3/25)
25
18 U.S.C. § 205: Activities of officers and employees in claims against and other matters affecting the Government New York Times: Elon Musk’s Business Empire Scores Benefits Under Trump Shake-Up (2/11/25)
26
27
Illegal ImpoundmentCongressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) SEC. 1012. (A)

See also CRS Report (2/25/25) and GAO's Article (3/5/25).		New York, et al. v. Trump, et al. (1:25-cv-00039): Complaint; Request for TRO filed 1/28/25; TRO granted on 2/10/25.Fedscoop: Federal judges double down on temporarily halting Trump’s funding freeze (2/4/25)
28
Fed. R. Civ. P. 65: Injunctions and Restraining OrdersState of New York v. Linda McMahon (1:25-cv-10601-MJJ): Complaint filed 7/14/25NPR: Judge says Trump administration is not in full compliance with order on spending (2/10/25)
29
Power of Court 18 U.S.C. § 401Popular Information: NIH admits funding freeze is illegal, will resume issuing grants (2/12/25)
30
Trump administration is preparing to challenge budget law, U.S. officials say (6/25/25)
31
Two Dozen States Sue Trump Over $6.8 Billion School Funding Freeze (7/14/25)
32
GAO report finds that HHS's NIH cuts violate the Impoundment Control Act (8/5/25)
33
Seeking Remedies in Impoundment Cases When Funding Is Poised to Expire Issue Brief (Aug. 2025)
34
NASA Planning for Unauthorized Shutdown of Carbon Monitoring Satellites (8/5/25)
35
36
Unlawful Conditions on/Termination of Government Grants/Commandeering IssuesFurther Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024MA v. NIH No. 25-CV-10338-AK (MA Dist Court) (complaint filed 2/10/25)
- Summary: 22 states sued NIH, challenging its decision to place a 15% cap on indirect funding for research projects; TRO granted.
- House Democrats’ Litigation and Rapid Response Task Force filed an amicus brief signed by 152 members.		A Title VI Demand Letter That Still Violates Title VI (and the Constitution) RE: issue of standing in AAUP v. U.S. DOJ
37
Executive Order 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025)Separation of Powers
• U.S. Const., Art. I, § 8, Cl. 1 [Spending Power of Congress]
• U.S. Const., Art. I, § 9, Cl. 7 [RE: Executive Branch]		Japanese American Citizens League v. Musk (complaint filed 3/5/25)DOGE still chomping away at enviro spending
38
Climate United Fund v. Citibank N.A., EPA (complaint filed 3/8/25)
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted the preliminary injunction that prevented the EPA from clawing back funding for renewable energy in lower-cincome communities (9/2/25).		DOGE took over grants.gov in April (4/11/25).
39
Section 601 of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964AAUP v. U.S. DOJ (complaint filed 3/25/25) (order denying preliminary injunction and dismissing for lack of standing filed 6/16/25)
40
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 42 U.S.C. §§ 701 et seq.American Association of People with Disabilities v. Dudek (complaint filed 4/2/25)
41
Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974APHA v. NIH (complaint filed 4/2/25) (SCOTUS 8/21/25)
• 5-4 grant of an emergency stay of District Court judge's ruling.
42
Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A), (C)Child Trends v. DOGE (complaint filed 4/7/25)
43
Guidance for Grants & Agreements, 85 Fed. Reg. 49,506-507American Center for Int’l Labor Solidarity v. Chavez-Deremer (complaint filed 4/15/25)
• DOGE made a cut of ~$577M to reduce spending at the U.S. DOL, which resulted in Bureau of International Affairs (ILAB) terminating all 69 of its cooperative agreements.
44
Inflation Reduction ActPresident and Fellows of Harvard College v. US Department of Health and Human Services (complaint filed 4/21/25)
45
Thakur v. Trump, 3:25-cv-04737 (complaint filed 6/4/25) (order granting preliminary injunction filed 9/22/25)
• Judge Lin distinguished the present case from SCOTUS's ruling in APHA v. NIH.
46
New Jersey v. U.S. OMB (complaint filed 6/24/25)
• It is unclear whether, in the absence of knowing what arrangements a university has made or will make with shorted researchers, there is enough to meet the causation prong of standing.
47
Appalachian Voices v. EPA (complaint filed 6/25/25)
48
49
Buy-Out Offer to Federal Employees & Commitments to Paying Salaries Beyond the Current Appropriations PeriodsAntideficiency Act 31 U.S.C. § 1341(a)(1)(B): No officer can involve the government in a contract or obligation for the payment of money before an appropriation is made, unless authorized by law.AFL-CIO, NAGE v. Ezell (MA Dist Court) (filed 2/4/25)OPM Memo: Legality of Deferred Resignation Program (2/4/25)The Ps are unable to succeed on the merits of their two APA claims because they lack Article III standing and because this Court does not have SMJ over the claims asserted.

Unions lack standing because they are not directly harmed. Diversion of resources to answer members’ questions about the directive, a potential loss of membership, or possible reputational harm is not direct harm.

No SMJ after applying the Thunder Basin test.
Individual employees and unions could have remedies under federal civil service laws, but those complaints have to go through an administrative process before courts can review them.
50
On Jan. 28, 2025, OPM sent an emailed titled, "Fork in the Road," offering federal employees a deferred resignation program.Administrative Leave Act 5 U.S.C 6329(a) NTEU, et al. v. Trump (DC Dist Court) (2/12/25)The Hill: Union sues over Trump buyout offer (2/4/25)But agency leads have stated they do not need to reply/some judges have also received this email.
51
5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.801-2635.803: Conflicting outside employment and activities for government employees.POLITICO: Judge temporarily blocks Trump’s exit plan for federal employees (2/6/25)
52
5 U.S.C § 5533: Dual pay from more than one position; limitations; exceptions.Reuters: US judge keeps block on Trump federal buyout plan in place for now (2/10/25)
53
Administrative Procedure Act 5 U.S.C.§ 706 et seq.: Judicial review of agency action.Judge lifts previous order ruling unions did not have standing and should exhaust all administrative methods first (2/12/25)
54
AP News: Musk gives federal workers 48 hours to say what they did last week (2/23/25)
55
Trump's Education Department offers up to $25K buyout to employees with midnight deadline (2/28/25)
56
57
Mass Firing of Agency EmployeesAdministrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706> AFL-CIO v. U.S. OPM, 3:25-cv-01780-WHA (complaint filed 2/19/25)
- Judge Alsup issued a preliminary injunction blocking OPM from directing agencies regarding probationary employee terminations (Prelim Injunction granted on 4/3/25)
- Ct granted partial MSJ to the unions, held OPM acted beyond its statutory authority in directing probationary-employee terminations, denied the government’s cross-motion, and entered limited permanent injunctive relief to motion filed 9/12/25: motion filed 9/12/25		> The Hill: Trump Administration Asks Supreme Court to Intervene in Rehiring of Federal Workers (3/25/25)
> Court finds OPM unlawfully directed mass firings 9/13/25		Organization is requesting records of government plans to significantly cut staffing across 29 federal agencies;
58
Executive Order No. 14210: Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency" Workforce Optimization Initiative (Feb. 14, 2025)
• Instructs agencies to begin reductions in force (RIFs)		Separation of Powers> AFL-CIO v. Trump (complaint filed 4/28/25) (order granting TRO filed 5/9/25) (order granting preliminary injunction filed 5/22/25)
- The preliminary injunction extended freeze in layoffs and reorganization across 22 federal departments/agencies.
> AFL-CLIO v Trump (Complaint filed 7/25)
- SCOTUS granted stay of prelim injunction 7/8/25: Order granting Stay		Politico: Trump Admin Urges Supreme Court to OK Probationary Worker Firings (3/24/25)"A Primer on Reductions in Force" by Prof. Nick Bednar.
59
National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU), et al. v. Trump, et al. (25-420) (complaint filed 2/12/25)
• Public-sector unions sued the Trump administration, alleging the administration has not offered a bona fide reason for RIFs.

RE: this lawsuit's interplay with the James & Hoffman's class action before the MSPB (Merit Systems Protection Board):
• First, the TRO isn't going to do anything for someone already fired. An injunction might, but any injunction that comes down will be issued a long time from the time a complaint is filed.
• Second, fired employees have to choose between going to OSC and MSPB. Usually, OSC would be the better route, as the Special Counsel has greater authority to obtain redress from MSPB than individuals do bringing cases on their own to MSPB. OSC can evaluate whether the agency has engaged in any of the full suite of prohibited personnel practices against federal employees, including probationary employees. Moreover, OSC can ask the MSPB for reinstatement. This is much broader than the prohibited personnel practices that fired probationary employees can argue for at MSPB–they are limited to litigating over racial, gender, and other illegal forms of discrimination. Of course, many expect the Supreme Court to allow President Trump to remove the current Special Counsel without finding cause. If that happens, it's likely that OSC will find that no prohibited personnel practices were violated. And if employees have to choose between OSC and MSPB, they would lose out on the MSPB option.
• Lastly, fired probationary employees can also before MSPB that there was an unlawful reduction in force (RIF).


> No final ruling on the mertis of this case yet; still in prelim motion proceedings, District ct judge declined to temporarily halt firings (workers must go through admin channels first) See The Washington Post 2/20/25
> Politico: National Parks Service Puts Rehired Workers Back on the Job Instead of Leave (3/24/25)
> Press Release by NTEU explaining expansion of suit to include workers represented by various unions (9/22/25)
60
Natl Assn of Immigration Judges v. Sirce Owen (judgment order filed 6/3/25)
• Fourth Circuit suggested that Trump's firing of MSPB members (and its consequent loss of quorum) and of the Special Counsel has led to such an undermining of the purpose of the Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) that perhaps district courts should be able to hear suits by federal employees (or in this case the NAIJ).
• Holding: “Because Congress intended for the [CSRA] to strip district courts of jurisdiction only if federal employees were otherwise able to receive adequate and independent review of their claims, we vacate and remand to the district court to consider whether the text, structure, and purpose of the [CSRA] has been so undermined that the jurisdiction stripping scheme no longer controls."
> Nat'l Ass'n of Immigration Judges v. Owen, No. 1:20-cv-00731 (E.D. Va.), No. 20-1868 and 23-2235 (4th Cir.), Margolin v. Nat'l Ass'n of Immigration Judges, No. 25A662, No. 25-767.		Oversight and Government Reform Committee Democrats have introduced a Resolution of Inquiry to investigate the Trump Administration’s unprecedented attacks on federal workers.Nov. 20 2025 — Order denying rehearing en banc

Nov. 24 2025 — Government motion to stay mandate

Dec. 2 2025 — Appellees’ opposition (locate court opinions referenced in https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/naij-v-neal?utm.com re Margolin v. National Association of Immigration Judges
61
62
Firing of IGs Without Notice to Congress Inspector General Act of 1978, Title 5 § 403(b): removal procedures.
• Per IG Independence and Empowerment Act of 2022, must provide a substantive, case-specific rationale for termination		> Storch v. Hegseth, 1:25-cv-00415 (complaint filed by 8 IGs on 2/12/25) (motion for TRO and preliminary injunction filed on 2/14/25)
- The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued an order Memo Opinion 9/24/25 (denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that the plaintiffs did not show irreparable injury sufficient to justify injunctive relief; treated the PI motion as if it sought a permanent injunction and held that relief was not warranted on the current record, did not resolve the merits of the underlying claims (whether the IG removals were lawful); the court stayed the case pending resolution in Trump v. Slaughter (a related Supreme Court case).
> Fired watchdogs can’t be reinstated despite Trump’s ‘obvious’ law breaking, court decides (9/25/25)CRS Report: Removal of Inspectors General: Rules, Practice, and Considerations for Congress (1/27/25). Note President Reagan’s removal of 16 IGs in 1981, but reinstated 5 after bipartisan criticism.
63
Inspector General Reform Act of 2008 added 30-day congressional notice requirement for terminationAt least 5 IGs came f/ agencies currently leading or that previously led investigations into Elon Musk’s businesses, many of which hold billions of dollars in government contracts.
64
House Committee criticism of 2022 amendment bill
65
66
Firing of Career Senior Executive Service (SES) Officials5 U.S.C. § 3132: Government Organization and Employees. Appointments, performance appraisal, and disciplinary actions.Gilbert Employment Law, P.C.: New SES Execuitve Order - What it Does and Does Not Do (1/31/25)Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Oversight Board, 561 U.S. 477 (2010)
67
WH Memorandum (Jan. 20, 2025)Civil Service Reform Act (CSRA) of 1978> 1) Case filed 1/25: Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Trump 8:25-cv-00260; PEER sought declaratory and injunctive relief, arguing that Executive Order (EO) 14171 was unlawful and exceeded President Trump's authority.
>Motion for Amended Complaint filed March 4, 2026
> 2) Case filed 2/6/25 government-accountability-project-v-united-states-office-of-personnel/; updated 2/26 challenging CSRA and Administrative Procedure Act (APA)		> Rueturs: 3/4/26 Unions sue over trump efforts nix federal worker job protections
> Federal News Network: 3/26 Lawsuit contends schedule policy career exceeds presidential authority		See Esparraguera v. Department of the Army, No. 22-5150 (D.C. Cir. 2024) (decided 5/10/24), which held there is a property right in an SES position and SES members are entitled “to at least notice and an opportunity to respond” before being removed from the SES.
68
OPM Memorandum (Feb. 5, 2025)
69
OPM Memorandum (Mar. 6, 2025)
70
71
Attempted Removals Pursuant to Schedule F Conflict With OPM RegulationsUpholding Civil Service Protections and Merit System Principles 89 F.R. 24982 (rule prologue discusses potential issues with Schedule F)National Treasury Employees Union (NTEU) v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00170 (DC Dist. Court) (complaint filed 1/20/25)Federal Worker Rights: Breaking down the lawsuits challenging "Schedule Policy/Career" (1/31/25)
> Federal Court Temporarily Halts CFPB Changes (3/31/25)
72
Executive Order 14147: Restoring Accountability to Policy-Influencing Positions Within the Federal Workforce (Jan. 20, 2025)
73
OPM Memo: Guidance on Implementing President Trump’s EO (Jan. 27, 2025)
74
75
Removal of Admin OfficersSection 2 of Article II of the U.S. Constitution, which requires the Senate to participate in the executive powers of treaty-making and appointing so-called principal officers.
• One of the President’s Article II authorities is to “require the opinion, in writing, of the principal officer in each of the executive departments, upon any subject relating to the duties of their respective offices.” The executive branch is thus foreseen as involving “executive departments.” With regard to those departments, the President has the duty to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”—that is, executed by others. The text certainly reads as if “departments” are part of the executive branch. (Prof. Peter M. Shane, Mar. 3, 2025.)		Wilcox v. Trump, No. CV 25-334 (D.D.C.) (complaint filed 2/5/25) (memo opinion filed 3/5/25) (SCOTUS granted stay on 5/22/25)
- "Humphrey's Executor and its progeny control the outcome of this case and require that plaintiff be permitted to continue her role as Board member of the NLRB and her termination declared unlawful and void."
- House and Senate Democratic Leadership filed an amicus brief.		Letter from Acting SG to Sen. Durbin: for-cause removal for multi-member regulatory commissions is unconstitutional; will not defend (2/12/25)See Humphrey's Executor where SCOTUS upheld the constitutionality of the FTC and held invalid President FDR’s dismissal of an FTC commissioner without good cause and in violation of the FTC Act.
• SCOTUS might be poised to reconsider holding; see Fed. Trade Comm'n v. Syngenta Crop Prot. AG, 711 F. Supp. 3d 545 (M.D.N.C. 2024) ("The Supreme Court has since questioned the holding of Humphrey's Executor.")
• Under the unitary executive theory, Humphrey’s Executor, though unanimous, was wrong. According to UET, the Constitution does not allow for agencies independent of complete presidential control. See Trump v. U.S., 603 U.S. 593 (2024), which infers from the president’s obligation to ensure that the laws be faithfully executed a seemingly comprehensive power to direct all “those who wield executive power on his behalf.” (Prof. Peter M. Shane, Mar. 3, 2025.)
76
• On Jan. 27, 2025, Trump fired Gwynne Wilcox as Chair of NLRB (National Labor Relations Board), leaving the five-member board with only two members and a lack of quorum to rule on cases.
• On Jan. 27, 2025, Trump fired Travis LeBlanc and Edward Felten as Members of the PCLOB (Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board).
• On Jan. 31, 2025, Trump fired Rohit Chopra as the Director of CFPB (Consumer Financial Protection Bureau). No lawsuit.
• On Feb. 7, 2025, Trump fired Hampton Dellinger as Special Counsel.
• On Feb. 10, 2025, Trump fired Susan Grundmann as Chair of Federal Labor Relations Authority.
• On Feb. 10, 2025, Trump fired Cathy Harris as Chair of Merit Systems Protection Board.
• On Feb. 24, 2025, Trump fired Ward Brehm as Board Member of USADF (U.S. African Development Foundation).
• On Feb. 26, 2025, Trump fired Sara Aviel as President and CEO of IAF (Inter-American Foundation).
• On Mar. 18, 2025, Trump fired Alvaro Bedoya and Rebecca Kelly Slaughter as Commissioners of FTC (Federal Trade Commision). No lawsuit.		Federal Service Labor-Management Relations Statute, 5 U.S.C. § 7104(b)Dellinger v. Bessent (complaint filed 2/10/25) (order filed 2/15/25) (memorandum opinion filed 3/1/25)
• Court distinguishes Seila Law and finds removal restrictions not unconstitutional.
• Judge Jackson held Special Counsel Dellinger's statutory tenure protection is constitutional and therefore enjoined the defendant officers from taking any steps to prevent Dellinger from continuing to serve in his office.
> Harris v Bessent complaint filed 2/11/25 Harris v. Bessent - Filed on behalf of A Former Merit Systems Protection Board Member In response to the Trump administration's efforts to
Fire a member of the independent Merit Systems Protection Board for federal workers 1:25-cv-00412		The Federal Vacancies Reform Act of 1998 (Vacancies Act) and specific agency succession provisions govern the use of acting officials in federal agencies. 5 U.S.C. § 3347(a). When both are present, the Administration typically can choose between them. For example, the first Trump Administration used the Vacancies Act for a temporary head of the Social Security Administration; the Biden Administration relied on the agency's succession provision for an acting leader. See also Hooks v. Kitsap Tenant Support Servs., Inc., 816 F.3d 550, 555–56 (9th Cir. 2016) (holding that because the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) “specifically provides for the temporary designation of an Acting General Counsel in the event of a vacancy,” neither the NLRA nor the Vacancies Act are the “exclusive means of appointing an Acting General Counsel of the NLRB”).

Here, neither option is available. The Vacancies Act does not apply to the Inter-American Foundation's Board of Directors or the African Development Foundation's Board of Directors. 5 U.S.C. § 3349c. And there is no succession provision permitting acting service for either Board in the respective agency's statute. 22 U.S.C. §§ 290f; 290h.

The President seems to be asserting that he has inherent power under Article II to name acting Board members, without the advice and consent of the Senate. He does not have such authority. If the President has such power, the Vacancies Act would violate the Constitution as it limits the President's ability to name acting officials who can carry out the full duties of a covered Senate-confirmed position when it is vacant. If it is the position of this Administration that the Vacancies Act is unconstitutional, such a position would conflict with Supreme Court case law. See NLRB v. SW General, Inc., 580 U.S. 288 (2017). In addition, such a position would clash directly with longstanding congressional practice. Congress has enacted Vacancy Acts since 1792. Valerie C. Brannon, Congressional Research Service, R44997, The Vacancies Act: A Legal Overview (last updated Jan. 27, 2025).

If the President claims he has inherent authority under Article II to name acting officials only when the Vacancies Act does not apply, that assertion depends on a very peculiar and implausible interpretation of Article II.

Most important, there is a statute governing the selection of the Board of Directors of each entity, which comports with the Appointments Clause. If the President can avoid the nomination and confirmation process in this way, he will be avoiding his constitutional mandate to nominate officers for positions "established by Law," and he will be intruding on Congress's constitutional powers, including the Senate's confirmation power. See U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, cl. 2; Williams v. Phillips, 360 F.Supp. 1363, 1369 (D.D.C. 1973).

If the President wishes to name new Board members, who can then pick a new Chair, he should submit nominations to the Senate.
77
Executive Order 14215: Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies (Feb 18, 2025).
• Authorizes OMB to “prohibit independent regulatory agencies from expending appropriations on particular activities, functions, projects, or objects”; requires IRCs to clear regulatory proposals through OMB; and mandates consultation with OMB regarding “performance standards and management objectives for independent agency heads,” as well as each agency’s “obligations for consistency with the President’s policies and priorities.”
• Sec. 7: "The President and the Attorney General’s opinions on questions of law are controlling on all employees in the conduct of their official duties."		Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq.Grundmann v. Trump, 1:25-cv-00425 (complaint filed 2/13/25) (order filed 3/12/25)
• The statute requires "notice and hearing and only for inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office."
78
Federal Vacancies Reform Act, 5 U.S.C. § 3345 et seq.Harris v. Bessent (complaint filed 2/11/25) (opinion filed 3/4/25)
- Judge Contreras ruled the tenure protection for Board members is constitutional and that the injunction prohibiting officials from taking steps to deny Cathy Harris the ability to exercise the powers of her office is permissible even in equity, by virtue of Sampson, Swan, and Severino.
- - House and Senate Democratic Leadership filed an amicus brief.
79
LeBlanc v. U.S. PCLOB (complaint filed 2/24/25)
80
Brehm v. Marocco, 1:25-cv-00660 (complaint filed 3/6/25)
81
Aviel v. Gor (complaint filed 3/17/25)
82
Slaughter v. Trump (complaint filed 3/27/25)
- House and Senate Democratic Leadership filed an amicus brief.
83
Boyle v. Trump (complaint filed 5/21/25)
- Judge ruled in favor of Plaintiffs and ordered the commissioners to resume their duties as CPSC commissioners. (Memorandum of Opinion made on 6/13/25)
- The administration request to the court of appeals to “stay” the 6/13 ruling (i.e. put it on hold) while it appeals was denied by the 4th Circuit on 7/1/25, but granted by SCOTUS on 7/23/25.
84
Perlmutter v. Blanche (complaint filed 5/22/25)
- Judge denied Plaintiff's preliminary injunction, denying her reinstatement during litigation. (Memorandum of Opinion made on 7/30/25)
85
86
Illegal Effort to Dismantle USAID

• Cancellation of nearly 5,800 USAID awards.
• Placing of 2,140 employees on admininistrative leave by 2/7/25.
• Firing of USAID IG on 2/11/25 (who did not file with 8 other IGs on 2/12/25)		Foreign Assistance Act (FAA) of 1961 led to the creation of the U.S. Agency for International Development, first by Executive Order No. 10973 then by the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998American Foreign Service Association, AFGE v. Trump (DC Dist Court) (complaint filed 2/6/25) (memorandum in support of Ps' motion for TRO filed 2/7/25)
• Main issue is that Ds violated the Appropriation Act by not consulting and notifying Congress in trying to dismantle USAID.
(memorandum opinion filed 2/21/25)
• The court determined that employees were sufficiently protected by being put on administrative leave and allowed the reorganization to continue. This case only involved claims for the employees, not impoundment issues as raised by the Catholic Bishops lawsuit.
(Ps' motion for a TRO filed 3/11/25)
• House Democrats’ Litigation and Rapid Response Task Force firled an amicus brief on 3/31/25.
> Court Memo Opinion DISMISSED case for lack of jurisdiction on 7/25/25
> AFGE appealed to DC Circuit Court on 8/5/25; oral argument scheduled for 4/23/26		Just Security: Can the President Dissolve USAID by Executive Order? (2/1/25)Executive functions primer: Supreme Court Emergency Orders and Trump 2.0 (3/5/25)
87
Executive Order No. 14169: Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid (Jan. 20, 2025)Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998, 22 U.S.C. § 6501 et seq.Does 1-26 v. Elon Musk (filed 2/13/25)
(memorandum opinion filed 3/18/25)
• Ps Does 1-26 (current or recently terminated employees and contractors of USAID) filed a civil action against Ds Elon Musk (in his official capacity), the U.S. DOGE Service, and DOGE. Ps allege violations of the Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. Art. II, § 2, Cl. 2, and of the constitutional principle of the separation of powers. Ps filed a motion for a preliminary injunction, which is fully briefed. The Court held a hearing on the motion on 2/28/25. Where the Court found that Ds' unilateral actions to shut down USAlD likely violated the U.S. Constitution, the motion was granted in part and denied in part.
> Appeal fight over Having high level official depositions 3/24/25		CRS Report: USAID Under the Trump Administration (2/3/25)
88
Elon Musk (X, 2/2/25): "We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could gone to some great parties. Did that instead."Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2024. Concern: Alleged violation may only be in regards to the lack of consultation and notification per § 7063(a) of the Appropriations Act.AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition et al. v. United States Department of State et al. (Ps' motion filed 2/19/25)
(Ds' application to vacate district court order filed 2/26/25)
(District Judge Ali's order filed 3/10/25)
> SCOTUS granted the administration’s request for a stay of the injunction that would have required the administration to obligate $4 billion of foreign assistance funds, as required by appropriations laws enacted by Congress. (9/26/25)		ProPublica: In Breaking USAID, the Trump Administration May Have Broken the Law (2/9/25) “The plan from the employment perspective was to fire them all and make them sue. If the administration loses the court cases, so be it. The damage is done."
89
On March 28, 2025, Jeremy Lewin (USAID's Acting Deputy Administrator) sent an email RE: Reduction-In-Force (RIF) actions and USAID's transition to the State Department (email) (press release).Privacy Act of 1974: “It is a catastrophic privacy and information security violation for a band of some government and some nongovernment personnel to barge into an agency and take over systems that contain personal information” Department of State, et al. v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, et al. (SCOTUS ruling filed 3/5/25)
• The Court, by 5-4 vote (including Roberts and Barrett), lifts Roberts's administrative stay of the TRO, ordering only that the District Court clarify the obligations the government must meet in order to be in compliance.
• Notably, the majority denied the application rather than dismissing it as moot.
90
Administrative Procedures Act (APA) §§ 704, 706(2)(A) [arbitrary & capricious review]
• Generally speaking, there is no duty to exhaust administrative remedies unless the agency has a regulation providing for a stay of the action during the exhaustion process (usually an appeal process). Without a stay, the action is final and can be litigated under 704.		Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. DOGE Service, et al. (memorandum opinion filed in 3/10/25)
• OMB accepted CREW's two FOIA requests and agreed to process them on an expedited basis. USDS refuses to process CREW's FOIA request on the ground that USDS is not an "agency" subject to FOIA.
• Finding that USDS is likely covered by FOIA and that the public would be irreparably harmed by an indefinite delay in unearthing the records CREW seeks, the Court ordered USDS to process CREW’s request on an expedited timetable and, after receiving proposals on a production schedule, to begin producing documents on a rolling basis as soon as practicable. However, CREW has not established that it is entitled to disclosure by a date certain. The Court therefore denies CREW’s request for an order directing OMB and USDS to produce records by 3/10/25. The Court will also order both entities to preserve all records that may be responsive to CREW’s FOIA requests.
91
Impoundment Control Act
92
93
Gutting of AmeriCorpsSeparation of Powers/Appropriations Clause: Article I, Section 9, Clause 7: No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.State of Maryland et al. v. Corporation for National and Community Service, first complaint filed 4/29/2025; amended complaint filed 7/24/2025; 9/30/2025, plaintiff and defense filed a joint status report; AmeriCorp funds for Fiscal Year 2025 have been distributed, and plaintiffs withdrew their second requests for motion for preliminary injunctionGovernor Newsom responds to DOGE’s dismantling of AmeriCorps: ‘Middle finger to volunteers. We will sue’ (Tweet) (Apr. 17, 2025)
94
• $250 million in AmeriCorps contracts have been cancelled.
• 75% of full-time AmeriCorps employees were placed on administrative leave.		National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993, 42 U.S.C. §§ 12501 et seq;
Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704–706
Grant termination procedures, 42 U.S.C. § 12636		7/7/2025, Preliminary injunction requiring the reinstatement of laid off Americorp workersThe Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies Fiscal Year 2026 Appropriations Bill passed on 02/03/2026, and includes funding for AmeriCorp through the Corporation for National and Community Service; Bill Summary
95
96
Dismantling of NEH
• National Foundation on the Arts and Humanities Act of 1965, 20 U.S.C. §§ 951-60
• Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA): refusal to spend the appropriated NEH funds wihtout following the appropriate ICA procedures violates the ICA
• Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. §§ 702, 704, 706: terminations conducted without justification or reasoning
• Ultra Vires Doctrine: DOGE lacks statutory authority to take these actions
• 2 C.F.R. § 200.340: terminations did not comply with procedural requirments		American Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald (complaint filed 5/1/25); currently in the discovery and pre-trial motion stage as of 02/2025; 03/2026 Motion for Summary Judgement filedDOGE employees using ChatGPT to identify and cancel $100 million grants and nearly 1500 projects related to DEI
97
• In March and April, 2025, DOGE gutted the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH) and terminated almost all grants.• Separation of Powers: Article I, Section 1: Executive branch cannot unilaterally dismatle or eliminate an agency created by Congress
• Separation of Powers/Appropriations Clause: Article 1: Refusing to spend the $207 million Congress apropriated for the NEH in March 2025 violates Congress's constitutional spending authority
• Take Care Clause: Article II, Section 3: Mass termination of grants, staff, and programs prevents the faithful execution of 20 U.S.C. §§ 951-60
• First Amendment: Government may not supress speech based on content or views in conflict with the sitting Administration's views		• Oregon Council for the Humanities v. DOGE (complaint filed 5/15/25) (opinion made on 8/6/25); Federal judge ruled that termination of approved humanities grants were unlawful.
• The Authors Guild v. National Endowment for the Humanities (complaint filed 5/12/2025)
98
99
Rollback of Climate and Energy Funding5th Amendment, Equal Protection, Due Process Clause: discrimination against grant recipientts located in states located in states that voted for the opposing political party, terminating Department of Energy grants only in those states
1st Amendment, Free Speech, Retaliation: retlaiation against protected political spech by terminating funding for organizations located in states whose citizens voted for the opposing party from the Trump administration 		City of St. Paul, Minnesota v. Wright; complaint filed following the Trump administration's $7.5 billion environmental federal grant cuts (11/10/2025); summary judgement awarded to plaintiff's on their 5th Amenment equal protection clause violation claim (January 12, 2026)
Empire Leaseholder LLC v. Burgum; complaint filed following a federal suspension order halting all construction as part of broader Trump administration efforts to stop offshore wind development, general renewable energy projects, and clean-energy initiatives (01/02/26); Preliminary injunction held 01/14/2026		• Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia questions EPA's justifications for terminating $20 billion in climate grants
• D.C. court en banc hearing on EPA's termination of $20 billion in Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund grants
• 13 States sue Trump Administration's blocking of $2.7 billion in congressionally authorized clean energy funds
100
The Environmental Protection Agency is eliminating the 2009 Greenhouse Gas "Endangerment Finding" and repealing all federal vehicle greenhouse gas emissions standards for "budgetary saving" reasons (February 12, 2026)
Department of Energy terminating 321 financial awards that support 223 projects, totaling over $7.5 billion, (October 1, 2025)
Trump administration cuts funding to US Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), which releases periodic climate assessments (April 9, 2025)