Three non–profits have filed a lawsuit against the US Department of Labor over DOGE funding cuts that resulted in international labour rights programmes being terminated.
On 15 April, the Solidarity Center, Global March Against Child Labour, and The American Institute for Research (AIR) filed a lawsuit against the US government in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. The case challenges the US Department of Labor’s defunding of international labour rights programs administered by the Bureau of International Affairs (ILAB). It was brought against the US Department of Labor and Lori Chavez-Deremer, in her official capacity as US Secretary of Labor.
Background
As of 1 March 2025, ILAB had a total of 69 active cooperative agreements in place. Collectively, the claimants had 15 active ILAB agreements, totaling over $100 million in funding. This funding, according to the complaint, enabled the plaintiffs to hire and retain staff, both abroad and domestically, partner with labour unions and other organisations, engage with national, state and local governments, and fund global advocacy and organizing efforts.
- The Solidarity Center had 11 active agreements worth $80 million that supported their work across five continents.
- Global March Against Child Labour had one active agreement worth $4 million that supported their work addressing child labour in Nepal, Peru and Uganda.
- AIR had three active agreements worth $60 million that supported their work on improving working condition in Mexico.
In March, the US Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) made a cut of approximately $577 million to reduce spending at the US Department of Labor (DoL), which resulted in ILAB terminating all 69 of its cooperative agreements. At the time, Chavez-Deremer, the Secretary of Labor, referred to these agreements as “America last”, as it was felt they prioritised other countries’ economies over the USA, and stated that the funds will be reallocated to support American workers.
About the case
The plaintiffs are claiming that the defunding of ILAB is unlawful, and that policy disagreement does not give the Secretary of Labor the authority to cancel funds that have already been authorised by the US Congress. The basis for the filing is as follows:
The plaintiffs have the right to challenge and stop official actions that are ‘ultra vires’, actions taken beyond lawful authority. Under the US Constitution, only Congress holds legislative power and executive branch officials (i.e. the Secretary of Labor) cannot override or amend laws enacted by Congress. Congress has mandated ILAB’s work and its funding through a variety of laws, including the USMCA Implementation Act and recent DoL’s Appropriations Acts (2021-2024). By terminating ILAB’s agreements, the defendants have exceeded their authority and usurped the legislative authority of the US Congress. Policy disagreement with Congress’s directives does not give the defendants the authority to do this.
Under the US Administrative Procedure Act (APA), courts must set aside agency actions that violate law. As ILAB’s work and funding is mandated by law, the defendants are acting contrary to those statutes by eliminating ILAB’s funding. Policy disagreement with Congress’s directives does not give the defendants the authority to do this.
By withholding congressionally appropriated funds, the defendants are not acting in accordance with The Impoundment Control Act, in violation of the APA as outlined above. Under the Impoundment Control Act, there are specific circumstances that can result in funding being rescinded and deferred, but the President must send a “special message” to the Congress requesting this, which they must approve. In this case, those circumstances have not been met, the President has not sent a request, and Congress has not approved such a request.
By withholding ILAB’s funding and not reallocating it for a specific purpose, the defendants are effectively creating an unauthorised reserve of congressionally appropriated funds, which is not in accordance with the Anti-Deficiency Act, violating the APA. The Ant-Deficiency Act only allows for the creation of a reserve under specific circumstances, none of which have been met by the defendants.
The defendants’ termination of ILAB’s agreements violated the APA because the action was “arbitrary, capricious, [or] an abuse of discretion” (5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A)). They provided no reasoned explanation for the sudden and complete termination of ILAB’s programs, pursued an unlawful goal of dismantling a congressionally mandated initiative, and failed to account for the reliance interests that the plaintiffs and their stakeholders have in the successful completion of the plaintiffs’ ILAB-supported projects. As a result, the plaintiffs assert that the defendants acted improperly by forcing abandonment of critical projects tied to long-standing U.S. labour and trade policies, without proper justification.
The claimants are asking the court to formally declare the mass termination of ILAB’s agreements as unlawful, for the terminations to be revoked, and for all ILAB agreements and funding to be reinstated.
The case is expected to proceed through the US District Court for the District of Columbia, where it will undergo preliminary motions and hearings. The timeline for these proceedings can vary, but an initial response from the US government as defendant is typically due within 60 days of the filing.
This is the first lawsuit directly challenging US DoL’s decision to cut ILAB’s funding. The case is likely to be watched closely as the court’s decision could set a precedent regarding the scope of executive authority to alter or terminate congressionally mandated programs.