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.
Judges have ruled in the administration’s favor on multiple key issues, including upholding USAID staffing decisions, blocking New York City from reclaiming FEMA funds, affirming the right to remove diversity-related positions at the CIA, and rejecting an attempt to limit Elon Musk’s access to federal data.
Here are the Trump administration’s major court victories so far, as compiled by Forbes:
• USAID Staffers: Trump-appointed Judge Carl Nichols ruled Feb. 21 the Trump administration can place workers at USAID on leave, reversing a previous ruling he made against the government after the administration submitted a filing assuring workers on leave will continue to receive government protections. He then refused to issue an order blocking the Trump administration from terminating USAID contractors in a hearing March 6.
• Firing Hampton Dellinger: The D.C. appeals court on March 5 halted a lower court order preventing the Trump administration from terminating Dellinger, who has questioned Trump’s mass firings in his role atop the Office of Special Counsel, a watchdog agency. The ruling effectively allows Dellinger to be removed from his job while the case works its way through the appeal process, and Dellinger accepted the court’s ruling Thursday and said he would abide by it, suggesting he will not seek further appeals. Dellinger’s case was the first to make it to the Supreme Court, which temporarily kept him in his job last month, ruling 7-2 not to overrule a court order.
• NYC FEMA Funds: A federal judge denied New York City’s request to get back $80 million in FEMA funds the Trump administration rescinded even after they had already been disbursed, multiple outlets report, ruling during a hearing March 5 that there’s no immediate need to grant the city’s request now while the litigation is still playing out.
• CIA Employees: CIA Director John Ratcliffe can fire employees who served in roles related to diversity, equity and inclusion, Judge Anthony Trenga ruled at a hearing Thursday according to multiple reports, after the employees sued to block their firing—with The New York Times reporting the judge said he thinks based on “basic fairness” the employees shouldn’t have been dismissed, but Ratcliffe has authority to fire them under the law.
• Associated Press: Judge Trevor McFadden let the Trump administration keep blocking Associated Press reporters from major White House events—at least for now—denying a request by the AP to restore its journalists’ access after the Trump administration punished the news service for directing journalists to still use the term “Gulf of Mexico,” after Trump ordered the body of water to be renamed the “Gulf of America.”
• Elon Musk’s Authority: Judge Tanya Chutkan denied Democratic attorneys general’s efforts to block Musk and DOGE from accessing federal data or make personnel decisions—as the states argue Musk is an “agent of chaos” who doesn’t have the authority to make widespread government decisions—though Chutkan expressed concern in her Feb. 18 ruling about Musk’s authority and suggested she could rule against him in the future.
• DOGE Access to Labor Data: Judge John Bates twice denied labor unions’ request to block DOGE from accessing Labor Department data, at least while the litigation moves forward, first ruling the plaintiffs didn’t have standing, and then ruling Feb. 14 the plaintiffs did not sufficiently show their claims are likely to succeed—even as Bates acknowledged his “serious concerns about the privacy concerns raised by this case.”
• Federal Worker Buyouts: Judge George O’Toole let a deadline expire for federal workers to take a buyout offer, ruling Feb. 12 the labor unions challenging the buyout plan didn’t have standing to bring the case, after previously extending the deadline several times.
• Federal Employee Emails: Judge Randolph Daniel Moss denied an effort by federal workers to bar the government from sending mass emails to employees using an allegedly unsecured email server, finding on Feb. 17 the plaintiffs were unlikely to show they had standing to bring the case.
While critics of the administration continue to use the courts as a tool to challenge Trump’s policies, recent rulings show that judicial decisions remain a mixed bag. Some courts have sided with the administration, recognizing its legal authority to implement its policies, while others have placed temporary blocks on certain initiatives.
However, with each victory, Trump demonstrates his ability to navigate and overcome resistance, ensuring that his policies—particularly those aimed at cutting government waste—continue to take effect.
As these cases continue to unfold, one thing is clear: Trump’s commitment to reshaping the federal government and eliminating inefficiencies is not easily derailed, even in the face of legal challenges.
This story is reposted from the paid subscriber post at Relentless.
State AG Urges Trump DOJ To Investigate Who Was Actually Running The Country Under Biden
