A Small U.S. Agency Fights for Survival Against Trump Administration

Standing Up Against Executive Overreach

In an extraordinary showdown, the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF), a small federal agency dedicated to investing in African small businesses, is preparing for a critical court battle. The agency is fighting to maintain its independence and continue its operations amidst an attempt by the Trump administration to take control of its functions. The conflict escalated last week when staff from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) attempted to enter USADF offices in Washington. Although initially barred, they managed to gain access by returning with U.S. Marshals. This dramatic turn of events highlights the deepening tension between the agency and the administration.

Legal Battle for Control

At the heart of the legal dispute is whether the Trump administration has the authority to remove the agency’s board members and president, Ward Brehm. Brehm filed a lawsuit against the administration, arguing that the attempted takeover is illegal and that neither President Trump nor DOGE has the power to shut down USADF or replace its leadership. A temporary restraining order was granted by U.S. District Judge Richard J. Leon, halting the administration’s efforts to replace USADF’s leadership. The case is set to be heard on Tuesday, with Judge Leon expected to rule on whether the Trump administration can legally remove the board members and appoint new ones.

Historical Context and Legal Precedents

The legal battle revolves around the interpretation of presidential authority regarding independent agencies. A nearly 90-year-old Supreme Court decision, known as Humphrey’s Executor, has historically protected independent agency board members from being removed without cause. This precedent has been a cornerstone for advocates challenging the Trump administration’s firing spree. However, recent Supreme Court decisions have expanded presidential removal powers, and legal experts speculate that the conservative majority on the court may be open to overturning Humphrey’s Executor. This could have far-reaching implications for the independence of federal agencies.

Administrative Takeover Tactics

The Trump administration’s tactics in this case have been controversial. According to a government filing, the administration claims to have removed USADF’s board members via emails from the White House last month. However, USADF disputes this account, stating that only President Ward Brehm received a removal email. The remaining board members promptly appointed Brehm as president on March 3, following the resignation of the previous president before the agency was targeted for elimination. Attorneys for the Trump administration have accused USADF’s board of obstructing the President’s directives, arguing that the President must have the authority to designate acting officials to enforce the law.

Patterns of Agency Dismantling

This is not the first time the Trump administration has targeted an independent agency. The Inter-American Foundation (IAF), another independent agency, was recently shut down by the same DOGE staff and Pete Marocco, the deputy administrator of USAID. Marocco, who now chairs USADF’s board, led the dismantling of IAF, resulting in the cancellation of grants and contracts and the layoffs of most staff members. IAF previously oversaw nearly $350 million in investments in Latin America and the Caribbean, with over half of its funding coming from external sources. The parallels between the two cases raise concerns about the broader strategy to consolidate executive power and eliminate independent agencies.

Implications for Federal Governance

The outcome of this legal battle could have significant implications for the balance of power in federal governance. If the Trump administration succeeds in removing USADF’s board members, it would set a dangerous precedent, allowing the executive branch to exert greater control over independent agencies. These agencies, established by Congress to operate independently, are crucial for ensuring that certain functions of government remain insulated from political interference. The case also underscores the importance of judicial oversight in checking executive overreach and upholding the rule of law. As the court prepares to hear arguments, all eyes are on whether the judiciary will uphold the independence of USADF or pave the way for further consolidation of executive authority.