Federal judge halts the Trump administration from dismantling the US African Development Foundation
U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., ruled that Trump violated federal law when he appointed Pete Marocco the new head of the U.S. African Development Foundation, or USDAF, because Marocco was never confirmed by Congress. As a result, Marocco's actions — terminating most of the agency's employees and effectively ending the agency's grants — are void and must be undone, the judge found.
Congress created USADF as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries.
On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. Trump also fired the agency's board members and installed Marocco as the board chair.
Two USDAF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF sued on May 21, challenging Marocco's appointment and saying the deep cuts to the agency prevented it from carrying out its congressionally mandated functions.
The staffers and consulting firm asked the judge for a preliminary injunction, saying Marocco's 'slash-and-burn approach' threatened to reduce the agency to rubble before their lawsuit is resolved. They said the Federal Vacancies Reform Act prohibited Marocco's appointment to USADF, and that the same law requires that any actions done by an unlawfully appointed person must be unwound.
'This is a victory for the rule of law and the communities that rely on USADF's vital work,' said Joel McElvain, senior legal adviser at Democracy Forward, the organization representing the USDAF staffers and consulting firm in their lawsuit. 'We will continue fighting against these power grabs to protect USADF's ability to fulfill the mission that Congress gave it to perform.'
U.S. Attorney Jeanine Pirro had written in court documents that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act doesn't apply to USADF, and that the president has the authority to designate acting members of the agency's board until the Senate confirms his nominees. Any claims about the cuts themselves, Pirro said, must be handled in the Court of Federal Claims, not the federal district court.
The judge found in a separate case that Trump had the legal authority to fire the previous members of the USADF board. Pirro wrote in court documents in that case that the president also has the legal authority to appoint someone to run the USADF, consistent with Trump's policy goals, until the Senate could confirm his nominees.
___
AP journalist Lisa Baumann in Bellingham, Washington, contributed to this report.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
15 minutes ago
- Forbes
Texas Delivers On Housing Reforms, Connecticut Stumbles
Mexican American family having a party in backyard of sustainable home with solar panels on the ... More roof. Suburb area of Houston, Texas. The median sale price for a home in the United States was $440,913 in May, about $140,000 more than five years ago. The housing affordability problem that started in a few coastal cities has spread across the country, and the only way to solve it is to build a lot more housing. This year Texas passed several laws that will do just that, while in Connecticut a similar bundle of reforms was vetoed by the governor. In its legislative session that ended earlier this month, Texas passed a number of reforms to make it easier to build more housing. The first law, SB 840, requires municipalities to allow what is commonly called missing-middle housing. These are housing types that lie between large single-family homes and multi-story apartment buildings, such as duplexes, triplexes, and townhomes. Many local governments have rules that effectively ban these types of homes, but now they will be allowed in any area already zoned for commercial or mixed-use development. This will enable developers to build affordable housing near shops, restaurants, and jobs, a pattern of development that was common across the country but has largely taken a backseat to residential-only suburbs since the 1960s. Another law, SB 15, will make it easier for developers to build smaller homes in Texas. The law prohibits cities from requiring lot sizes of more than 1,400 square feet in new greenfield subdivisions of at least five acres. Land is a big contributor to the cost of housing, comprising between 20% and 40% of the cost of a new house. Allowing builders to use less land will make housing more affordable for lower- and middle-income families. The third pro-housing law, SB 2477, removes regulations that discourage office-to-residential conversions. This law prevents local governments from tying up conversion projects with unnecessary traffic studies, parking requirements, and zoning changes. Last year, the Pew Charitable Trusts released a report showing that converting office buildings to single-room occupancy units is a feasible and effective way to add more housing in dense city centers. This new law will pave the way for such projects in Texas's big cities. The next law, SB 2835, allows developers to build apartment buildings up to six stories with only one staircase. Single-stair apartment buildings are cheaper to build—reducing construction costs by 6% to 13%—and can fit on smaller lots than double-loaded corridor buildings. Their flexibility is especially important for infill development in cities, where lots are often small and irregularly shaped. Finally, HB 24 eliminates a loophole that enabled small groups of anti-housing protesters to block new housing projects. The old law made it too easy for a minority of residents to use petitions and other mechanisms to stifle development. The new law modernizes the community feedback process to create more predictability for builders and ensures that property owners are not unduly prevented from using their land to help communities meet the growing demand for more housing. Texas has grown rapidly since the pandemic, and these reforms will make it easier and cheaper to build the housing it needs. The reforms are timely, too. In a recent study, economists Edward Glaeser and Joseph Gyourko find that many Southern and Western metro areas are not adding as much housing as they used to, which is pushing prices up. By passing these pro-housing laws, Texas is doing its part to reverse this trend so families can afford to live and work in the Lonestar state. Shifting to the Northeast, like Texas Connecticut had a chance to make housing more affordable this year. But unlike Texas, it whiffed on the opportunity when Connecticut Governor Ned Lamont vetoed HB 5002. Connecticut's home price-to-median income ratio is 4.4, below the U.S. average but still a signal that housing is too expensive. Worse, the gap between housing prices and income has widened over the last five years. HB 5002 would make several changes to the state's housing policies designed to improve affordability. These include reducing and eliminating parking requirements, making it easier to convert commercial buildings to residential units, encouraging more development near public transportation routes, and making it easier to build missing-middle housing such as duplexes and townhomes. The bill would also increase funding to support and improve governments' planning processes. During his veto announcement, Governor Lamont expressed support for many of the provisions in the bill. But in the end, he sided with local officials worried about the state infringing on local control. During his press conference, he said 'I think the only way to really make it work is if you have buy-in from the local communities.' In a unique twist, Connecticut Republicans—long thought to be the party of economic growth and property rights—led the effort to veto a bill that would have boosted economic growth and expanded individual property rights. Responding to Lamont's veto, Pete Harrison, the Connecticut Director of the Regional Plan Association and the Director of pro-housing organization DesegregateCT told me, 'We wish Governor Lamont let alone Republicans in Connecticut would show half the foresight and common sense that Red State Republicans have shown when it comes to housing policy. The disconnect is costing Connecticut billions in economic activity and future growth.' He added 'We hope the governor keeps his promise to call a special session where both he and Republicans will have another chance at stepping up as both the Democratic-controlled House and Senate have done.' While Governor Lamont's and Republicans' concerns about local control are understandable, it is important to remember local governments only have the control states grant them. If local governments abuse their authority—perhaps by making it unnecessarily difficult to build housing—state officials should step in to rectify the situation and uphold their responsibility to help the state prosper. When it comes to zoning and land-use regulations, there are powerful local incentives to restrict new development. Current homeowners, well-connected developers, and local politicians chosen from these groups often worry about the impact new development will have on their neighborhoods, so they hinder it. State officials are better positioned to overcome these concerns since they have an incentive to consider the broader economic effects more housing will have on the state's economy and budget. It would be wise for Governor Lamont to remember these dynamics the next time a housing bill crosses his desk. The high cost of housing is one of the biggest problems facing America. Research shows that high housing prices limit access to jobs and high-quality schools, delay family formation, and even reduce fertility. Young people are the most affected. According to one recent survey, 67% of Americans believe homeownership is unrealistic for young people. If this belief persists, it will undermine how younger generations view America: Not as the land of opportunity, but as a place where opportunity is hoarded by established homeowners at the expense of everyone else. Texas's officials are trying to fix the problem. We will see if Connecticut's join them.
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's budget bill is closer to becoming law - here are the remaining sticking points
Donald Trump's massive tax and spending budget bill is returning to the US House of Representatives - as the clock ticks down to the president's 4 July deadline for lawmakers to present him with a final version that can be signed into law. The bill narrowly cleared the Senate, or upper chamber of Congress, on Tuesday. Vice-President JD Vance cast a tie-breaking vote after more than 24 hours of debate and resistance from some Republican senators. It could prove equally tricky for Trump's allies to pass the bill through the House, where Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to hold a vote as early as Wednesday. The lower chamber approved an earlier version of the bill in May with a margin of just one vote, and this bill must now be reconciled with the Senate version. Both chambers are controlled by Trump's Republicans, but within the party several factions are fighting over key policies in the lengthy legislation. Sticking points include the question of how much the bill will add to the US national deficit, and how deeply it will cut healthcare and other social programmes. During previous signs of rebellion against Trump at Congress, Republican lawmakers have ultimately fallen in line. Facing intense pressure, House must decide if Trump's bill is good enough What's in Trump's budget bill? Trump and Musk feud again over budget plans The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) estimated that the version of the bill that was passed on Tuesday by the Senate could add $3.3tn (£2.4tn) to the US national deficit over the next 10 years. That compares with $2.8tn that could be added by the earlier version that was narrowly passed by the House. The deficit means the difference between what the US government spends and the revenue it receives. This outraged the fiscal hawks in the conservative House Freedom Caucus, who have threatened to tank the bill. Many of them are echoing claims made by Elon Musk, Trump's former adviser and campaign donor, who has repeatedly lashed out at lawmakers for considering a bill that will ultimately add to US national debt. Shortly after the Senate passed the bill, Congressman Ralph Norman of South Carolina, a Freedom Caucus member, called the move "unconscionable". "What the Senate did, I'll vote against it here and I'll vote against it on the floor," he added. Norman's colleague from Texas, Chip Roy, was also quick to signal his frustration. "I think the odds are a hell of a lot lower than they were even 48 hours ago or 72 hours ago based on the deal-cutting that I just saw," Roy said in response to a question about meeting Trump's 4 July deadline. Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris of Tennessee told Fox News that "a group of us are not going to vote to advance the bill until we iron out some of the deficit problems". "Mr Musk is right, we cannot sustain these deficits," Harris continued. "He understands finances, he understands debts and deficits, and we have to make further progress." On Tuesday, Conservative Congressman Andy Ogles went as far as to file an amendment that would completely replace the Senate version of the bill, which he called a "dud", with the original House-approved one. Meanwhile, Ohio Republican Warren Davison posted on X: "Promising someone else will cut spending in the future does not cut spending." He added: "We will eventually arrive at the crash site, because it appears nothing will stop this runaway spending train. A fatal overdose of government." Beyond fiscal hawks, House Republican leadership will also have to contend with moderates in their party who represent more liberal-leaning states and key swing districts that helped the party rise to power in the November election. "I've been clear from the start that I will not support a final reconciliation bill that makes harmful cuts to Medicaid, puts critical funding at risk, or threatens the stability of healthcare providers," said Congressman David Valadao, who represents a swing district in California. This echoes the criticism of opposition Democrats. Other Republicans have signalled a willingness to compromise. Randy Fine, from Florida, told the BBC he had frustrations with the Senate version of the bill, but that he would vote it through the House because "we can't let the perfect be the enemy of the good". Representatives from poorer districts are worried about the Senate version of the bill harming their constituents, which could also hurt them at the polls in 2026. According to the Hill, six Republicans planning to vote down the bill due to concerns about cuts to key provisions, including cuts to medical coverage. Some of the critical Republicans have attacked the Senate's more aggressive cuts to Medicaid, the healthcare programme relied upon by millions of low-income Americans. House Republicans had wrestled over how much to cut Medicaid and food subsidies in the initial version their chamber passed. They needed the bill to reduce spending, in order to offset lost revenue from the tax cuts contained in the legislation. The Senate made steeper cuts to both areas in the version passed on Tuesday. Changes to Medicaid and the Affordable Care Act (better known as Obamacare) in the Senate's bill would see roughly 12 million Americans lose health insurance by 2034, according to a CBO report published on Saturday. Under the version originally passed by the House, a smaller number of 11 million Americans would have had their coverage stripped, according to the CBO. Discussing the Medicaid issue with former Trump adviser and conservative podcaster Steve Bannon, Georgia Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene was asked whether the House might simply "rubber stamp" the Senate version. The right-wing House member and Trump loyalist responded that there was not enough support to get the bill through the House, using strong language to suggest the situation was a mess. "I think it's far from over," she said. "It's really a dire situation. We're on a time clock that's really been set on us, so we have a lot of pressure." The bill also deals with the question of how much taxpayers can deduct from the amount they pay in federal taxes, based on how much they pay in state and local taxes (Salt). This, too, has become a controversial issue. There is currently a $10,000 cap, which expires this year. Both the Senate and House have approved increasing this to $40,000. But in the Senate-approved version, the cap would return to $10,000 after five years. This change could pose a problem for some House Republicans.


The Hill
19 minutes ago
- The Hill
Greene says Johnson doesn't have votes to pass ‘big, beautiful bill': ‘S— show'
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-Ga.) predicted a tough battle ahead for President Trump's agenda-setting 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' as the tax and spending megabill returns to the House following its dramatic Senate passage Tuesday, describing the situation as a 's— show.' 'There's no way that [Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.)] has the votes in the House for this,' Greene told political pundit and Trump ally Steve Bannon on an episode of his 'War Room' podcast. 'I think it's far from over.' She added, 'It is really a dire situation.' The House returned to the Capitol on Wednesday to try to hash out differences between its version of the bill and the one advanced through the Senate — which was narrowly passed after a tie-breaking vote from Vice President Vance following a marathon debate on its specifics. Trump has pressed GOP lawmakers to send the bill to him for final approval by Friday. 'We're on a time clock that's been really set on us, so we have a lot of pressure — and then also given the fact that there's 435 members of Congress and it's hard for us to get to an agreement on anything,' Greene continued. 'So this whole thing is — I don't know what to call it — it's a s— show.' 'I know we're not supposed to say that on the air, but that's truly what it is,' the Georgia Republican added. The House passed its take on the bill in May in a razor-thin 215-214 vote amid pressure from Trump, Vance and other White House allies. Johnson and other GOP leaders have been trying to bring skeptical House members on board with changes that the Senate made in its version by this week's self-imposed deadline that Trump has pushed. 'We knew we would come to this moment. We knew the Senate would amend the House product. I encouraged them to amend it as lightly as possible. They went a little further than many of us would have preferred, but we have the product now,' Johnson told reporters in the Capitol on Tuesday. 'As the President said, it's his bill. It's not a House bill, it's not a Senate bill, it's the American people's bill.' 'My objective and my responsibility is to get that bill over the line, so we will do everything possible to do that, and I will work with all of our colleagues,' he added. Johnson has also acknowledged that inclement weather could add another road bump, after several lawmakers posted online that their flights back to Washington were delayed or canceled.