Irreparable Harm: DOGE’s Ongoing Takeover of an Independent Institute

The United States Institute of Peace (USIP) was established, by Congress in 1984 through the Defense Authorization Act of 1985, as an independent and nonpartisan peacebuilding institution [3]. The government’s influence over the institution is limited: Congress provides funding, and the President, with the consent of Congress, can appoint and remove board members.

On the evening of March 17, 2025, Members of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, arrived unannounced at the headquarters of USIP in Washington D.C. With the help of D.C. police officers DOGE forced their way into the building eventually ousting USIP President George Moose, a retired diplomat. They barred Moose and several key officials from the premises and seized control of the organization [1].

Two days later, on March 19, 2025, members of the USIP board filed a legal challenge against DOGE’s. In an attempt to prevent the take-over, and DOGE from interfering with its operations, USIP requested a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) [1]. If granted, a TRO would have not only prevented DOGE from taking further actions but also reinstated the ousted board members who filed the suit. Temporary Restraining Orders come with a high legal bar, requiring plaintiffs to demonstrate four criteria: the likelihood of success on the merits, immediate and irreparable harm, that the balance of equities favors the plaintiff, and that granting the TRO serves the public interest. In this case, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell denied their request for a TRO; however, she commented stating DOGE’s “terrorizing” tactics “offended” her. Howell described the complaint as messy, taking issue with its likelihood of success and the merits of its claims [4]. One of the four aspects of a TRO the plaintiffs failed to prove was of immediate and irreparable harm, which is often the hardest to prove and requires the plaintiff to demonstrate that the damage cannot be reversed through financial compensation or future actions [5].

USIP’s arguments of irreparable harm are laid out in their Complaint for Injunctive Relief: they argue that DOGE’s actions would irreparably harm USIP by reducing its functions, canceling its contracts, damaging its reputation, and depriving its board members of their statutory rights [1]. Many of these complaints and potential harms are speculative on what DOGE might do based on their past actions. While reputational and financial harm was cited, some could argue this does not constitute irreparable harm and USIP could be compensated at a future time [6].

Regardless of the justification, the decision to deny the TRO is troubling—especially in light of the USAID case. There, the Department of Government Efficiency, also aiming to cut wasteful spending, used nearly identical tactics to dismantle a congressionally protected organization: firing key officials, accessing classified documents and software, shutting down the website, and withholding congressionally appropriated funds [7]. These actions were so extreme that District Judge Theodore Chuang ultimately granted USAID’s TRO [8].

The Department of Government Efficiency’s approach to USIP is highly similar to their actions with USAID: with the help of law enforcement, they have taken control of USIP’s operations and software, removed key leadership, and, as of March 2025, shut down their website [9]. The parallels between USAID and USIP show why USIP faces an imminent threat of irreparable harm; however, similarities are not a legal justification for a TRO.

Even without prior context on DOGE’s actions, the Court may not be giving enough weight to the unique harm imposed on USIP through loss of reputation. As global peacebuilders, the organization requires trust between themselves, governments, NGOs, and non-state actors to function. Upholding their obligations is essential to their mission, and the loss of trust in USIP can likely not be repaired with future compensation.

Howell’s reluctance to grant USIP a TRO is not the only issue as the Trump administration has shown a willingness to circumvent them. When the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition sued the administration over its freeze of lifesaving USAID funds, the D.C. District Court granted them a TRO, ordering them to end the blanket freeze on funds, but the administration ignored the order [10]. In response, the Court issued orders forcing them to comply with the TRO.

Temporary Restraining Orders are an extraordinary and temporary remedy. As a result, they cannot be appealed barring extreme exceptions. Thus, the administration appealed the subsequent enforcement orders–rather than the TRO–to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit [11]. The Court ruled against them, reaffirming that TROs, and the enforcement orders, are not subject to appeal [12].

Again, the administration appealed to the Supreme Court. To many, the fact the case was even considered by the Supreme Court was alarming: this was a clear attempt to illegally appeal a TRO. The Court ruled 5-4 against Trump, but it required Justice Amy Coney Barrett to break ranks from her fellow conservatives.

Looking back at the USIP case, Judge Howell’s decision to deny the TRO further underscores how DOGE’s actions threaten the proper functioning of government, but it’s unclear whether DOGE or the administration would have respected it even if granted. The administration has already demonstrated a willingness to defy judicial orders, as seen in its refusal to comply with the TRO restoring USAID funds. Even after multiple enforcement orders and an appeal that reaffirmed TROs as unappealable, they escalated the fight to the Supreme Court in an attempt to circumvent this. Given DOGE’s pattern of aggressive and unconventional action, future legal challenges are inevitable. By declining to intervene at this early stage, Judge Howell not only risks delaying the problem but also allowing executive defiance of judicial authority to become the status quo.

Sources:

1. Complaint, United States Inst. of Peace v. Dep’t of Gov’t Efficiency, No. 25‑cv‑00804 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2025).
2. Vaughn Cockayne, Musk’s DOGE Gains Access to Offices of U.S. Institute for Peace; Think Tank Calls It a Break-In, Wash. Times (Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2025/mar/18/elon-musks-doge-gains-access-offices-us-institute-peace/.
3. Department of Defense Authorization Act, 1985, Pub. L. No. 98-525, 98 Stat. 2494 (1984).
4. United States Inst. of Peace v. Jackson, No. 1:25-cv-00804 (D.D.C. Mar. 18, 2025).
5. Samson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61 (1974).
6. Lindsay Whitehurst & Michael Kunzelman, Judge Rules DOGE’s USAID Dismantling Likely Violates the Constitution, AP News (Mar. 18, 2025, 8:33 PM EDT), https://apnews.com/article/usaid-federal-judge-trump-administration-bdc919a5d98eda5ab72a32fdfe2f147d.
7. J. Does 1–26 v. Elon Musk, No. 8:25-cv-00462-TDC (D. Md. Mar. 18, 2025).
8. Issie Lapowsky, DOGE Seizes Control of Independent Org Dedicated to Peace, Vanity Fair (Mar. 18, 2025), https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/doge-seizes-control-of-us-peace-institute?.
9. Pls.’ Emergency Mot. to Enforce TRO & to Hold Restrained Defs. in Civ. Contempt, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 1:25-cv-00400-AHA (D.D.C. Feb. 19, 2025).
10. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, Nos. 25-00400 & 25-00402 (D.D.C. Feb. 25, 2025).
11. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coal. v. U.S. Dep’t of State, No. 25-5046 (D.C. Cir. Feb. 26, 2025).