Trump Gets Major Court Victory Against USAID Contractors, Can Dismantle Agency

“The destruction of USAID is now imminent."

The Trump administration notched another legal win Thursday as a federal judge rejected an effort by USAID contractors to block the termination of their contracts.

The ruling, handed down by Judge Carl Nichols, marks a significant victory in the administration’s broader push to streamline government agencies, reduce inefficiencies, and ensure taxpayer money is spent wisely.

The contractors, who work with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), argued that ending their contracts would cause “irreparable harm.” However, Judge Nichols ruled that they had not sufficiently demonstrated such harm and suggested they seek remedies outside of the courts. This decision aligns with the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to downsize USAID, which has long been a source of excessive foreign aid spending and bureaucratic redundancy.

“The destruction of USAID is now imminent,” said Carolyn Shapiro, a lawyer for the challengers.

Internal documents have unveiled the extensive scope of budget reductions the Trump administration plans to implement at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with nearly 15,000 grants totaling $60 billion slated for elimination.

These grants, which make up roughly 90% of USAID’s foreign aid contracts, are being cut following a State Department review of government spending.

Targeting USAID has been a priority for the Trump administration, as the president has long criticized foreign aid, arguing that it fails to serve American taxpayers. He has also been outspoken in his opposition to the agency’s leadership, at one point referring to top officials as “radical lunatics.”

This ruling comes just a day after the Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ordered the government to pay out $2 billion in previously promised foreign aid.

While the ruling was a setback for Trump’s push to rein in wasteful spending, it does not diminish the administration’s broader success in court.

The Supreme Court’s decision was split, with the dissenting justices, including Samuel Alito, arguing that a single district judge should not have the unchecked authority to compel the government to pay out taxpayer dollars. The Supreme Court ruling is also not finalized.

Despite ongoing legal challenges, Trump’s agenda has been holding strong in the courts.