U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, appointed by President Donald Trump, ruled that the contractors failed to prove their firings constituted irreparable harm, denying their request for emergency relief. The ruling follows Nichols’s earlier decision against a USAID union seeking to block the termination of more than 2,000 direct-hire employees.
According to USAID Deputy Administrator Peter Marocco, 791 contractors in “high- and middle-income countries” such as the U.S., Moldova, and Thailand were let go. Marocco stated their contracts were inconsistent with USAID’s mission to aid lower-income nations, and terminations began on Feb. 19.
Attorney Carolyn Shapiro, representing the contractors, argued that many overseas workers faced significant hardship, including those with medical conditions, who had less than a month to relocate. Nichols, however, determined that such injuries could be remedied through financial compensation, according to Courthouse News.
Justice Department attorney Michael Clendenen defended the firings, noting that unlike USAID employees placed on paid leave, the contractors had no statutory protections.
The decision is part of Trump’s broader push to restructure USAID, an effort championed by Elon Musk through the Department of Government Efficiency. Though Musk’s exact role remains unclear, he has boasted of dismantling USAID on social media.
Trump gets win on firing USAID contractors after temporary Supreme Court setback
Nichols’s favorable ruling for the administration follows developments in a separate case that was briefly before the Supreme Court, this one surrounding $2 billion for foreign aid contracts that Trump is seeking to claw back even though much of the contractors’ work pertaining to those grants has already been performed.
ALITO ‘STUNNED’ AFTER SUPREME COURT REJECTION OF TRUMP FOREIGN AID FREEZE
The justices on Wednesday narrowly upheld U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s order requiring the administration to disburse $2 billion in frozen foreign aid, dealing a temporary blow to Trump’s broader agenda. The terms of compliance with the lower court’s order will be meted out in a Thursday afternoon hearing.
The funding dispute could again be raised by the justices. Four of them have signaled potential interest in granting a hearing on the merits after Justice Samuel Alito‘s fiery dissent, depending on the outcome of a preliminary injunction hearing in Ali’s court.
