Marshals Guide DOGE Team to African Aid Agency

Federal Marshals Intervene at U.S. African Development Foundation as Tensions Escalate

In an unprecedented turn of events, federal marshals accompanied officials from the Department of Government Efficiency (DGE) to the U.S. African Development Foundation (USADF) on Thursday. This move came just a day after foundation employees had barred entry to key figures from the Trump administration, including Pete Marocco, the State Department official spearheading foreign aid cuts, along with a delegation from the DGE led by Elon Musk.

Upon their arrival, security personnel were instructed to change the locks at the foundation, which manages an annual budget of approximately $45 million and employs around 55 staff members. Videos circulating online depicted Mr. Marocco entering the building independently of the DGE team and a security official confirmed that he briefly visited the site during the takeover.

The escalating situation marks the climax of weeks-long tensions between the Trump administration and the leadership of the foundation. Mr. Marocco, backed by Musk’s team, had sought to take control of the foundation’s operations, pressure its leaders to dismiss existing staff, and appoint Mr. Marocco as the acting head of the agency.

In a swift response, Ward Brehm, the foundation’s president, initiated legal proceedings in U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia within an hour of the federal officials’ arrival. The lawsuit aims to prevent Marocco from ousting him and assuming control over the foundation. Brehm’s complaint highlighted the urgent need for judicial intervention, asserting that without immediate legal action, the Trump administration would persist in “strong-arming” their way into the foundation, leading to potentially irreversible damage in a matter of days.

Brehm is seeking a court ruling that affirms his rightful position as president and an injunction to prevent the Trump administration from removing him or installing Mr. Marocco or anyone else as his successor. The White House has, however, contested Brehm’s allegations, asserting that their actions are grounded in a presidential directive to minimize staffing within agencies deemed “unnecessary.” Spokeswoman Anna Kelly emphasized that “entitled, rogue bureaucrats” lack the authority to challenge presidential orders or obstruct his representatives’ access.

As the conflict unfolds, representatives from Musk’s team and the State Department have not immediately provided comments on the situation. Historically, the USADF played a vital role in fostering economic growth in Africa by distributing federal grants of up to $250,000 to grassroots endeavors and social entrepreneurs. This mission has now been put under threat following an executive order issued by President Trump on February 19, which categorized the foundation as an entity that should be reduced.

The executive order prompted Musk’s team to initiate efforts to streamline the foundation’s operations, which faced fierce resistance from its staff and board members. Brehm’s lawsuit accuses officials associated with Musk of attempting to enter the foundation under false pretenses, violating legal norms that protect against the liquidation of the board and significant funding reductions.

The standoff reached its peak on Wednesday when Mr. Marocco and two of Musk’s deputies—Jacob Altik, a legal counsel, and Ethan Shaotran, a software engineer—were denied entry to the premise. Following the confrontation, Marocco threatened to return accompanied by U.S. Marshals and Secret Service personnel if access continued to be denied.

On Thursday, after the federal officials gained entry, it appeared that representatives remained inside the foundation for several hours. Brehm’s lawsuit noted that Marocco’s self-appointment as acting president had already been challenged by reinstating Brehm as president.

The escalating hostilities surrounding the USADF reflect broader tensions within the federal bureaucracy amidst the Trump administration’s concentrated efforts to reduce government operations that it deems unnecessary. As the legal battle commences, questions arise about the implications for federal agencies and their future functionality under political pressure.

In summary, the confrontation at the U.S. African Development Foundation underscores deeper systemic conflicts within the federal government, highlighting the struggle between appointed officials and civil servants dedicated to their missions. The outcome of this dispute may have far-reaching consequences, not only for the foundation itself but for the evolving landscape of federal governance.