A federal judge has declined to halt efforts by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to take over the U.S. Institute of Peace, in the midst of a heated legal challenge.
CBS News reported that the U.S. Institute of Peace, a government agency dedicated to promoting conflict resolution worldwide, has been thrown into a legal storm tied to President Trump’s wider effort to streamline federal operations.
The dispute centers upon the recent controversial dismissals of board members spearheaded by DOGE. The institution's internal upheaval began when U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell convened a hearing on Wednesday to assess the legality of these removals.
Five board members—Ambassador John Sullivan, Judy Ansley, Joseph Falk, Kerry Kennedy, and Mary Swig—launched a legal fight earlier in the week, challenging their ousting as unjustified.
Their lawsuit claims that the dismissals, which also included institute's president George Moose, breached federal laws safeguarding board members. In their place, ex officio board members, including prominent political figures such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, appointed Kenneth Jackson as acting president.
Subsequent to the removals, DOGE’s members, accompanied by FBI agents, attempted to gain what was described as unauthorized entry into the institute's premises.
This bold action was met with firm resistance from the institute's legal representation, spearheaded by outside counsel George Foote. Despite legal opposition, DOGE proceeded to occupy the building in a forceful entry, causing further tensions.
Judge Howell, in her ruling, noted that the procedures and criteria for the removal of board members were not adhered to, marking these removals as “undisputed” as per federal rules.
Nonetheless, her decision to deny a temporary restraining order emphasized the complexity of repositioning these members within the hierarchy. While reinstating the board members might seem like a resolution, she pointed out their influence would remain constrained due to the overarching control vested in the administration.
“None of the requirements for removal of a board member were met,” remarked Howell. DOGE, however, showed no sign of relenting. The board members who were removed advocated through the courts to nullify these dismissals. The court was also petitioned to block DOGE and administration officials from using the institute's resources until this matter saw resolution.
The judge’s critique extended beyond the legal skirmish surrounding board dismissals to DOGE's operations at the institute. “I am very offended by how DOGE has operated at the institute and treated American citizens trying to do a job that they were tasked to do,” Howell said during proceedings.
Removing George Moose, the president of the institute, marked another critical point of controversy. The institute, led until recently by Moose’s expertise, was suddenly under new stewardship.
DOGE's actions, viewed by many as an affront to the institution's tradition of independent governance, have drawn bipartisan concerns about the implications of such aggressive administrative takeovers.
The judge asked pressing questions about the means employed by DOGE, inquiring into more lawful approaches besides force and threats. In doing so, she highlighted the broader concerns shared by many regarding governmental intervention in agencies like the Institute of Peace aimed at a more efficient federal footprint.
“What are the lawful ways to act against the Institute of Peace without using the force of guns and threats by DOGE?” she posed, underscoring the gravity and impact this scenario has had.
Nevertheless, as the legal case unfolds, many eyes remain on President Trump’s administration's strategies in reshaping federal entities.
For now, with Judge Howell’s decision, DOGE retains operational control over the institute, albeit amid intense scrutiny. This battle is emblematic of other confrontations witnessed during this administration, all aimed at trimming the federal establishment.
President Trump's ambition to restructure government departments has not only sparked contention within the Institute of Peace but also among numerous government agencies.
The case represents the larger narrative of his administration’s thrust to alter the landscape of federal governance, pushing parameters and challenging conventions.
