By John Q. Hosedrinker 
A federal judge sharply criticized the Trump administration for its failure to comply with a 12-day-old temporary restraining order that unfroze USAID contract spending. Despite the order, the government continued to defy the court’s directive to restore funding to global aid programs. The judge issued highly specific instructions for compliance, demanding payment of all pre-February 13th invoices by midnight February 26th and the submission of a joint status report detailing compliance steps. Further, the court ordered the government to provide all internal directives regarding compliance with the order by noon on February 26th, setting the stage for potential future legal action.
Read the original article here
A federal judge’s growing frustration with the Trump administration’s blatant disregard for a court order is escalating into a showdown over the unfreezing of USAID funds. The judge’s repeated attempts to obtain straightforward answers regarding compliance have been met with evasive responses from the government’s lawyer, leaving the court exasperated. The judge’s direct questions about whether funds frozen before February 13th had been unfrozen were met with the dismissive, “I’m not in a position to answer that.”
This wasn’t a first instance of defiance; the judge had previously issued a seven-page order enforcing the temporary restraining order, even rejecting a motion for contempt against key figures like Secretary of State Marco Rubio and USAID Deputy Secretary Pete Marocco. Despite this explicit order, the administration seemed to continue ignoring the court, prompting the plaintiffs to file an emergency motion to enforce the order once again.
The judge’s patience clearly wore thin. Facing continued non-compliance twelve days after the initial order, the judge issued highly specific demands. USAID was directed to pay all invoices for work completed before February 13th by a specific deadline, emphasizing that this action didn’t diminish the scope of the original restraining order. The government was also ordered to refrain from any actions impeding prompt payment of foreign assistance funds.
Furthermore, the judge demanded a joint status report detailing the steps taken towards compliance. But the judge’s directives didn’t end there; recognizing the pattern of evasion, the judge initiated a more forceful approach to securing evidence. The court explicitly demanded the identification of government officials and witnesses who could testify under oath about any remaining disputes regarding compliance.
Adding to the pressure, the judge ordered the government to provide all directives or guidance issued since the initial court order that related to its implementation. This request, explicitly stemming from discussions during the hearing, was designed to build an evidentiary record for the trial court, ensuring transparency and accountability. The deadline for this information coincided with the other court-ordered actions.
The situation has ignited considerable public debate concerning the administration’s disregard for judicial authority and the potential for a larger constitutional crisis. The question of whether the administration will comply with the judge’s stringent demands remains unanswered. The judge’s growing frustration highlights the potential power imbalance between the judicial branch and an executive branch determined to defy court orders, raising concerns about the rule of law and the court’s ability to enforce its decisions. The situation underscores a deeper issue, with many questioning whether the current judicial processes have adequate mechanisms to effectively address such blatant disregard for legal directives.
The impending deadline for compliance creates a pivotal moment. Failure to meet the deadlines could result in further consequences, potentially including contempt charges against government officials or attorneys. The judge’s actions are a stark reminder of the tension between the branches of government and the critical role of the judiciary in upholding the rule of law. The question is whether the court’s power to enforce its decisions will prove effective in the face of such outright defiance. The ultimate outcome will undoubtedly shape the future dynamics between the judicial branch and an increasingly defiant executive branch. The judge’s forceful actions, while a necessary response to the administration’s intransigence, also serve as a stark reminder of the potential fragility of the American system of checks and balances.