Institute of Peace headquarters transfer is a done deal even as lawsuit continues to unfold

WASHINGTON (news agencies) — A hearing Tuesday on the fate of the Institute of Peace ended without a legal decision, but presented a deep look into how the Trump administration is remaking the federal government.

Multiple times in a Tuesday hearing, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell equated the strategy to “a bull in a China shop” that is moving quickly and leaving destruction in its wake.

Howell’s comments came during a status hearing ordered after plaintiffs in a lawsuit asked for relief after learning that plans were being made to transfer the institute’s headquarters and assets to the General Services Administration.

The government’s response to the plaintiffs request indicated the transfer was further along than anyone knew.

“My question is, is this a done deal as of Saturday,” Howell asked. This seems like a big transfer of assets, “all in two days.”

Andrew Goldfarb, attorney for the original plaintiffs, said they had only learned how far along the transfer was in a government court filing seeking the status hearing to stop what was believed to be a coming attempt to transfer the property.

In court, the Trump administration’s attorney, Brian Hudak, laid out the timeline, making clear that the newly-named president of USIP had not only been authorized to transfer the property, but the request had gone through proper channels and was completed by March 29. Hudak added that he believed plans were already underway to lease the building and the equipment inside, to the Labor Department.

That came the day after much of the 300-member staff was fired via email and left in turmoil over the weekend. Employees posted overseas have until April 9 to return to the U.S. The terminated employees have until April 7 to gather their belongings.

In explaining the speed, Hudak said that it was “easy” for the executive branch to make transfers within the executive branch. He said he was not sure about the status of USIP’s endowment, which includes millions of dollars of donated funds. He thought that money had been left with the institute.

Howell questioned Goldfarb for 90 minutes of the two-hour hearing saying the questions from the underlying lawsuit remain: what is USIP and is it part of executive branch and therefore subject to the “whims” and authority of the president?

Throughout questioning Goldfarb maintained that USIP is an independent, non-profit, donor-supported organization. But Howell focused on whether, the key was the fact that presidents nominate the board and can therefore fire them. Howell, who was nominated by President Barack Obama, said the fundamental question is “what is this entity” and is it subject to the president’s authority, including appointing and replacing board members, “which he’s doing in spades.”

Trump issued an executive order in February that targeted USIP and three other agencies for closure in an effort to deliver on campaign promises to shrink the size of the federal government. The institute and many of its board members sued the Trump administration March 18, seeking to prevent their removal and to prevent DOGE from taking over its operations. The lawsuit accuses the White House of illegal firings by email.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, two of the three remaining – ex-officio – members of the board authorized the latest change of leadership at USIP and the transfer of assets to the GSA.

Howell had already rejected a request by the plaintiffs to reinstate them to their positions and to halt Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency from entering the headquarters.

While Howell retains jurisdiction over the initial case, Goldfarb argued that the harm of not freezing the actions now while she determines the underlying case will give the plaintiffs little to take control of if they win the case considering the employees will be gone, along with the headquarters and connections to partners. “It is doing incalculable damage to USIP.”

With the transfer, Howell said the road ahead, while not insurmountable, will be difficult. She said even if she rules for the plaintiffs, “that win makes no promises” on how difficult, or possible, it will be to put USIP back together. “A bull in a China shop breaks a lot of things.”