Top StoryUS

Trump’s Cuts to African Aid Agency Ruled Legal

Trump's Cuts to African Aid Agency Ruled Legal

Trump’s Cuts to African Aid Agency Ruled Legal \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Trump’s removal of board members from the U.S. African Development Foundation. The court ruled the Trump administration acted within legal limits in scaling back the agency. A related lawsuit disputing a key appointment remains pending.

Quick Looks

  • Judge ruled Trump acted within legal authority in firing USADF board
  • Dismissed lawsuit challenged board member removals and agency downsizing
  • Emails firing board members were misdirected but still deemed effective
  • Trump’s appointee, Pete Marocco, claimed agency leadership amid confusion
  • Rival board president Ward Brehm filed suit, which was tossed out
  • Parallel lawsuit challenges legality of Marocco’s appointment still ongoing
  • USADF created in 1980, supports development projects in 22 African nations
  • Court previously upheld cuts to funding and staffing at agency

Deep Look

In a significant ruling with major implications for executive power and U.S. development policy abroad, a federal judge has dismissed a lawsuit challenging President Donald Trump’s controversial restructuring of the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF). The lawsuit, filed in March 2025, contested the president’s sweeping removal of USADF’s board members and a sharp rollback of the agency’s operations—but U.S. District Judge Richard Leon sided firmly with the administration.

The case arose after Trump, now in his second term, signed an executive order on February 19 directing that several independent agencies, including USADF, be scaled back to their statutory minimum presence. The order also affected the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation, and the Presidio Trust. USADF, established in 1980 by Congress as an independent agency, provides grants and support for small-scale economic development projects in Africa, particularly in agriculture and energy.

At the time of the executive order, five out of seven USADF board seats were filled. Within days, Ward Brehm—then a board member—was informed by an administration official that he had been terminated. The remaining board members were likewise notified via email, but due to administrative errors, the termination notices were misdirected and never received.

Believing they still held office, the four remaining board members convened in March and passed a resolution naming Brehm as president of the board. However, the Trump administration had already acted, naming former Defense Department official Pete Marocco as the new chair of the agency—effectively asserting that the board now consisted of a single member under the president’s directive.

This led to a dramatic leadership dispute. While Marocco took up the post with support from the Trump White House, Brehm filed a lawsuit on March 6, arguing that the firings were invalid and that he remained the rightful board leader. The legal challenge questioned the president’s authority to unilaterally dismiss Senate-confirmed board members and replace them without congressional input.

Judge Leon rejected Brehm’s claims, ruling that even though the termination emails were not properly delivered, the intent and legal execution of the dismissals were valid. “The president has broad authority to manage the executive branch and to remove appointed officials, particularly from independent agencies like USADF,” Leon wrote. He added that the meeting held by the former board members in March was unauthorized and carried no legal weight, as their roles had ended weeks earlier.

While the ruling solidifies Trump’s authority to reorganize independent federal bodies, it leaves unresolved whether his appointment of Marocco complies with the statutory requirement that USADF board members be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. That question is the focus of a separate, still-pending lawsuit—Rural Development Innovations v. Marocco—also before Judge Leon.

In that case, two USADF employees and a Zambia-based nonprofit grantee allege that the Trump administration’s restructuring effort overstepped legal boundaries and undermined congressional oversight. Their core argument is that Marocco’s appointment violated both constitutional separation of powers and the agency’s founding statute, which mandates Senate confirmation for board members. They also contend that slashing staff and funding effectively crippled the agency without congressional repeal.

Despite the legal dispute, the Trump administration has doubled down on its broader efforts to overhaul federal spending on international aid and development. President Trump, a vocal critic of what he has often labeled “wasteful foreign aid,” has defended his actions as fiscally responsible and consistent with his “America First” doctrine. In a recent press briefing, the president reiterated that U.S. taxpayer dollars should “go to Americans first, not foreign governments or programs.”

Critics argue that this posture risks damaging long-standing diplomatic and development relationships, especially in sub-Saharan Africa, where USADF has funded nearly 400 community-based projects annually across 22 countries. In fiscal year 2023 alone, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency, funding local entrepreneurs, cooperatives, and renewable energy startups that promote economic self-reliance.

Legal experts are divided on the broader implications of Leon’s ruling. While some see it as a reaffirmation of presidential authority, others warn it could embolden future administrations to bypass congressional intent when reshaping or eliminating federal agencies.

Bradley Girard, legal counsel for Brehm and an attorney at the advocacy group Democracy Forward, expressed disappointment in the ruling but emphasized that the legal fight was far from over. “This decision failed to consider the constitutional framework governing federal appointments,” Girard said. “But in our parallel case, we remain confident that the court will scrutinize the administration’s unlawful circumvention of Senate confirmation requirements.”

Meanwhile, the U.S. African Development Foundation remains in a state of limbo. Though technically operational, its reduced staffing and leadership uncertainty have already delayed several grant programs in Africa. Development partners on the continent have expressed confusion and concern about the agency’s future.

The legal and political battles surrounding USADF may serve as a bellwether for the balance of power between the White House and Congress when it comes to the oversight of independent federal agencies. With President Trump openly challenging institutional norms and seeking greater executive control, the final rulings in these cases could reshape how development agencies function under future administrations.

More on US News

Trump’s Cuts to Trump’s Cuts to Trump’s Cuts to

Previous Article
Mayor Bass Declares Emergency Over Downtown LA Unrest
Next Article
Trump’s Tariffs Remain As Court Fast-Tracks Case

How useful was this article?

Click on a star to rate it!

Average rating 0 / 5. Vote count: 0

No votes so far! Be the first to rate this article.

Latest News

Menu