The Hostile Takeover at the Institute of Peace
On March 17, 2025, a confrontation unfolded at USIP’s headquarters between members of Elon Musk’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the institute’s leadership. The clash was triggered by the Trump administration’s sudden move to install a new USIP president after firing most of the institute’s board of directors days earlier.
USIP’s ousted president, former diplomat George Moose, and staff refused to yield, arguing that USIP is a private, congressionally chartered nonprofit beyond the executive’s authority. This power struggle escalated into an hours-long standoff that drew in Washington’s Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) and raised alarms about possible government overreach and the weaponization of law enforcement.
A Clash Over Control and Cost
The showdown’s roots lay in a February 2025 executive order from President Donald Trump targeting USIP and similar entities for downsizing or elimination.
Trump’s order – which declared USIP “unnecessary” – aimed to slash government spending and was part of a broader campaign to shrink the federal bureaucracy. It established Elon Musk’s DOGE as an initiative to hunt down “inefficiencies” in government, empowering teams (largely outside the formal civil service) to overhaul or gut agencies and programs. USIP, a congressionally funded peace institute founded in 1984, soon found itself in DOGE’s crosshairs. The independent institute’s mission is to prevent violent conflicts and promote peace abroad, and it operates under a bipartisan board of 15 directors (12 appointed by the President with Senate approval, plus ex-officio members like the Secretaries of State and Defense).
USIP is structured as an independent nonprofit corporation – not a federal agency – and it owns its building outright, a point its leaders would repeatedly emphasize during the crisis.
Trump’s efficiency drive quickly set up a collision course with USIP’s leadership. When USIP did not “comply” with the executive order’s demand to drastically cut its size, the White House moved to assert control. On March 14, Trump fired 11 of USIP’s 14 board members, using his appointment power to purge all but the ex-officio directors.
According to White House spokesperson Anna Kelly, these firings were lawful responses to “noncompliance” and were followed by the remaining board naming State Department official Kenneth Jackson as acting USIP president. “Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage. The Trump administration will enforce the President’s executive authority,” Kelly declared, framing USIP’s resistance as defiance that justified the takeover.
USIP’s ousted president George Moose and his colleagues vehemently disagreed. Moose – a veteran diplomat and USIP’s CEO until that week – maintained that the executive branch had no jurisdiction to seize an institute that Congress established as independent.
Under USIP’s founding law, the institute does not fall under standard definitions of a federal agency or government-controlled corporation. In Moose’s view, the President’s order and board purge were an illegal end-run around Congress. “Our statute is very clear about the status of this building and this institute… what has happened here today is an illegal takeover by elements of the executive branch of a private nonprofit,” Moose told reporters, standing on the steps outside USIP’s locked-down headquarters. He noted that the headquarters – a prominent building near the National Mall – is not federal property, underscoring USIP’s autonomy from the executive agencies around it.
The Standoff at USIP Headquarters
On Monday, March 17, when DOGE personnel arrived at USIP to physically assert control, in the days prior, there had already been test runs: on Friday the 14th, DOGE staff (accompanied by two FBI agents) had shown up at USIP’s door but left after the institute’s lawyer warned them of USIP’s “private and independent status” and lack of executive-branch affiliation.
Over the weekend, USIP officials circulated internal messages and even posted “Private Property – No Trespassing” signs on the building’s doors, bracing for a renewed push📷 Signs declaring “Private Property – No Trespassing” on USIP’s doors underscored the institute’s stance that its building was off-limits to unauthorized entry by federal teams. By Monday, their fears were realized: Kenneth Jackson, the newly appointed acting president, arrived with a DOGE team and attempted to gain entry. USIP staff refused them access, effectively barricading the institute. According to the White House, USIP employees even went so far as to disable internal phone lines and internet and physically block doorways to keep the Musk team out – a claim meant to paint the staff as saboteurs of a lawful order. (USIP officials have not denied taking security precautions, but view their actions as defending an independent institution from an unlawful incursion.)
By mid-afternoon, a stalemate had set in. USIP personnel had locked all entrances, and DOGE staffers were milling outside, unable to get past the building’s private security and protesting employees. An extraordinary scene played out on the building’s steps: Rep. Don Beyer (D-VA) showed up in person, stating he was there to “conduct congressional oversight” of what he bluntly described as “DOGE’s break-in”.
Beyer (whose district borders D.C.) and his wife attempted to enter the institute, presumably to check on the situation, but they too were initially kept out. With neither side backing down, both USIP officials and the DOGE team called D.C.’s Metropolitan Police Department for assistance, placing MPD officers in the awkward position of refereeing a power struggle between a federal task force and a congressionally chartered nonprofit.
Around 4:00 pm, events took a turn. Ed Martin, the interim U.S. Attorney for D.C. (and a Trump appointee), contacted MPD on behalf of the federal side.
Because Washington D.C. is not a state, the federally appointed U.S. Attorney acts as the District’s top prosecutor – a fact that now came into play. Martin pointed police to a letter indicating that George Moose had been lawfully removed and Jackson installed as USIP’s presidentnpr.org. Armed with this document, MPD officers treated the situation as one of unlawful entry: essentially, they recognized Jackson as the rightful occupant and Moose and his staff as trespassers on Jackson’s authority. According to the MPD’s official statement, the U.S. Attorney’s Office provided Jackson’s contact information, and officers met with him outside to verify his credentials as acting president (including documentation of the board’s resolution appointing him). Jackson informed the police that “unauthorized individuals” inside were refusing to leave and blocking his access.
MPD officers then moved to enforce the change in command. Police met a USIP staffer at one entrance who allowed them into the building.
Once inside, they confronted Moose and the remaining holdouts. The officers, guns holstered but present, told Moose and the others that they were trespassing and had to depart the premises. Faced with armed police asserting the new leadership’s authority, Moose acceded rather than risk a physical altercation. He had in fact been holed up in his office for much of the day, but now D.C. police “showed up at my office and said it is time for you to go,” as Moose later recountednpr.org. The veteran diplomat was escorted out of the building by MPD officers in the late afternoon, effectively ending the standoff. No one was arrested and the transition occurred “without incident,” according to police, once the outgoing officials agreed to leave peacefully. By Monday evening, Kenneth Jackson and the DOGE staff walked through USIP’s doors under police escort, assuming control of the headquarters.
The scenes outside and inside USIP that day were anything but peaceful. “DOGE just came into the building—they’re inside the building—they’re bringing the F.B.I. and… a bunch of D.C. police,” one USIP attorney, Sophia Lin, frantically told a reporter as she and colleagues were forced out.
To Moose, it was an emotional moment. “It’s a sad day,” he said, describing not just his ouster but the symbolism of a Peace institute under siege. “This building…was built as a symbol of the aspiration of the American people to be peace builders in the world,” Moose reflected, standing on the sidewalk as DOGE personnel began turning his office upside down.
D.C. Police Caught in the Middle
The involvement of Washington’s local police force in this federal power play was both pivotal and controversial. MPD officers essentially adjudicated a leadership dispute on the fly, a role that law enforcement is occasionally thrust into in civil conflicts. “In some ways this was a fairly routine call,” noted Vanessa Batters-Thompson of the D.C. Appleseed Center, pointing out that police are often asked to sort out who has rightful authority – as in a landlord-tenant dispute – and then remove the trespasser.
Indeed, MPD’s statement described the response in procedural terms: officers responded to a “call for service for Unlawful Entry,” met with the party legally in charge (Jackson), and then “notified the people who were there that they were now trespassing” before “get[ting] them to leave peacefully”. By that logic, USIP’s own security chief calling 911 for help backfired – once federal authorities convinced MPD that Moose & company were the intruders, not the DOGE team. Yet in other ways, this was far from routine, and many observers condemned how the situation was handled. For one, the federal role in directing local police raised eyebrows. It was the U.S. Attorney’s intervention – a federal official effectively instructing city police officers – that tipped the scales. Ed Martin, the interim D.C. prosecutor who gave MPD its marching orders, is “widely regarded as a Trump loyalist,” and he bypassed any court order in favor of an executive branch letter of dubious legality.
In a city with proper statehood, local authorities might have had more independence to question or refuse such a directive; in D.C., MPD ultimately deferred to the federal chain of command. This dynamic troubles legal experts. “For the first time in a very, very long time, street level police officers have to ask themselves whether they’re being told to do something that is itself lawful,” said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown law professor and former D.C. reserve police officer, noting that the politically appointed nature of D.C.’s justice system “places [officers] in a really impossible position”.
Critics say the episode highlights the weaponization of law enforcement for political ends. “DOGE’s actions [represent] an illegal power grab,” Congressman Don Beyer argued, “and [they] weaponized law enforcement” to oust USIP’s leadership
npr.org. Dozens of concerned residents contacted D.C. officials about MPD’s role, according to D.C. Councilmember Zachary Parker, who said he “share[s] these concerns” about officers effectively doing the bidding of a partisan task force. The optics were undeniably stark: images of city police escorting Musk’s efficiency operatives into an institute dedicated to peace, past signs declaring “Private Property,” gave many observers pause. “I have to say I am offended on behalf of the American citizens,” U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell remarked, reacting to reports of how DOGE “entered [USIP] with armed police” and “terroriz[ed]” the staff. Even as she declined to immediately undo the takeover, Judge Howell called the treatment of USIP employees “abominable”.
MPD, for its part, has defended its conduct as by-the-book given the information available. “Metropolitan Police did what they were trained to do,” Batters-Thompson said of the officers’ response. The police department’s official after-action report notes that once they verified Jackson’s status as acting president, the officers were duty-bound to remove those refusing his orders. And notably, the standoff ended without violence or arrests; even USIP’s George Moose conceded that the MPD personnel remained professional in carrying out their task. But the deeper question is whether the police should have been put in this position at all – essentially serving as muscle in a murky dispute over federal authority. That quandary is now fueling calls for greater oversight of how federal officials enlist local police in politically charged operations, especially in the unique governance environment of D.C.
Legal Battles and Political Fallout
In the wake of the standoff, USIP and its allies turned to the courts and Congress for recourse. Mere hours after being escorted out, George Moose and several fired board members filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking to reverse the takeover. The complaint accuses the administration of “completing the unlawful dismantling of the Institute” and argues that what occurred was “literal trespass and takeover by force” of a private entity.
USIP’s lawyers point out that the institute was “founded by Congress” and explicitly designed to be independent of the executive branch. Thus, they claim, the President’s actions – from the board purge without stated cause to the physical occupation – violated federal law and USIP’s charter. One USIP attorney, George Foote, bluntly told NPR that the building was “seized by force, by police officers with guns acting under the authority of a [board] resolution that we are going to get a court to declare invalid”.
By Wednesday, March 19, the dispute landed before Judge Beryl Howell in federal court. USIP sought an emergency order to bar DOGE from continuing to operate in its building. Judge Howell, however, declined to immediately undo the takeover, citing the complexity of the case.
The judge noted that USIP’s lawsuit was “messy” – it had been filed on behalf of only a subset of board members and not the institution as a whole, and Moose himself (the ousted president) was not a named plaintiff. More importantly, Howell said there is a “fundamental question” at stake: whether USIP is truly an independent entity or, despite its unusual status, part of the executive branch (and thus subject to the President’s direct control). That question, she implied, could not be resolved overnight. As a result, she stopped short of issuing a temporary injunction to restore Moose, effectively allowing DOGE’s team to remain in charge at least until a fuller hearing could be held.
Judge Howell did not mince words about the manner in which the administration had acted. From the bench, she called the use of armed officers to remove USIP staff “deeply troubling,” saying “USIP staff had been treated abominably” and that she was “offended on behalf of… American citizens” at what had transpired.
The judge indicated she would schedule another hearing to more thoroughly examine the legality of the takeover and the status of the institute, though no date was set. In the meantime, the White House quickly claimed vindication. “Judge Howell’s order affirms the President’s clear authority to appoint and remove board members,” a White House statement asserted, emphasizing that Trump had the power to fire USIP’s leadership. (The statement glossed over Howell’s harsh criticism of the tactics used.)
On Capitol Hill, political reverberations from the incident were growing. Representative Beyer, having personally witnessed the standoff, vowed to “work to stop DOGE’s illegal power grab”, calling USIP “an independent, non-profit entity” that the executive branch had no right to commandeer.
Other lawmakers noted that Congress had appropriated $55 million for USIP this year – funds that presumably can’t be reallocated without legislative approval. There is talk of congressional hearings on the matter, especially among Democrats who see the incident as part of a pattern of executive overreach. Even some Republicans privately voiced unease at the spectacle of police expelling an institute’s staff without a court order. The D.C. Council is also reviewing the MPD’s involvement; Councilmember Parker suggested the city needs protocols to handle any future conflicts between federal edicts and local institutions.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is unapologetic. At a press briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt doubled down on the portrayal of USIP’s staff as defiant bureaucrats undermining the president’s mandate. She accused institute employees of a “concerted effort” to barricade themselves inside, cut off communications, and distribute flyers encouraging resistance.
“This is a resistance from bureaucrats who don’t want to see change… This is unacceptable behavior,” Leavitt scolded, characterizing USIP’s work stoppage as exactly the kind of entrenched obstructionism Trump was elected to root out. The administration’s allies also point to another case that week: staff at the U.S. African Development Foundation (a small federal aid agency) similarly tried to bar a DOGE team from entering, only to be overruled by officials and a court order. To Trump’s supporters, these showdowns prove the existence of a “rogue bureaucracy” clinging to power in agencies and quasi-agencies across Washington – and they applaud the President’s willingness to crack down. One administration official told Fox News that the USIP incident exemplified the problem of “bureaucrats who have been in government for years and decades, who want to… dole out tax dollars unilaterally, with no oversight”, arguing that assertive measures were needed to bring such entities to heel.
USIP’s Status and the Question of Autonomy
At the heart of this conflict is a wonky but crucial issue: what exactly is the U.S. Institute of Peace, and under whose authority does it fall? USIP’s leadership and supporters describe it as a unique hybrid – created and funded by the federal government, but chartered as an independent nonprofit corporation. It was established by the United States Institute of Peace Act in 1984, which President Ronald Reagan signed into law, to serve as a nonpartisan institute for international conflict resolution.
By design, USIP receives its funding via congressional appropriations (to avoid reliance on outside donors that might sway its mission). However, it is not part of the executive branch in the way that, say, the State Department or USAID is. The law insulated USIP with a bipartisan board of directors and required that the Secretaries of State and Defense be ex-officio members – a structure intended to anchor the institute in U.S. foreign policy goals while still keeping it at arm’s length from any single administration. USIP does not report to the President or any Cabinet secretary, and its employees are not typical civil servants; they are hired by the institute, often as subject-matter experts or former diplomats, to carry out research, training, and peace-building programs around the world.
USIP owns its headquarters building and grounds, located on federal land in the Foggy Bottom neighborhood but managed by the institute itself. The striking white building – designed to resemble a dove from above – was finished in 2011 with a combination of federal and private funds, and it stands as a physical manifestation of USIP’s independence. “The institute’s headquarters…is not a federal building,” Moose emphasized during the standoff, drawing a clear line between USIP’s property and the government offices surrounding it.
In legal terms, USIP asserts that it fails to meet the U.S. Code definitions of a “government corporation,” “government-controlled corporation,” or even an “independent establishment” in the executive branch. In other words, it sees itself as a nongovernmental organization, albeit one created by federal law and funded by taxpayer dollars – a bit like the Smithsonian Institution or the Legal Services Corporation, which have federal charters but operate independently.
This status matters because it determines how (or if) the President can exert power over USIP. Typically, the President can hire and fire officials in the executive branch at will, but Congress can establish entities that the executive cannot simply control or dissolve. USIP’s enabling statute does allow the President to remove board members, but with conditions – reportedly requiring approval of a board majority or consultation with Congress.
Moose and others argue that Trump ignored these rules by firing the board en masse for “noncompliance” without demonstrating cause or following statutory procedures. They contend that even if the board removals were valid, the forcible installation of a new president crossed a line, since USIP’s board (even the remaining members) might not have had the legal authority to invite federal agents into the building. These finer points will be adjudicated in court in the coming weeks. The answer will hinge on whether USIP is deemed an extension of the federal government (as Trump’s executive order asserted, albeit “incorrectly,” according to the lawsuit) or a truly independent entity that can sue the administration as a private party.
Broader Constitutional and Political Implications
The USIP standoff is directing a spotlight on unsettled boundaries in American governance. One concern is the balance of powers between the executive and legislative branches. USIP exists because Congress willed it into being and funds it annually. If a president can unilaterally throttle such an institute – effectively firing its Congressionally-appointed board and seizing its operations – what does that mean for congressional authority? “I’ve never seen anything quite like this,”said one former USIP board member, noting that it’s essentially the inverse of a congressional subpoena standoff: here the executive asserted dominance over something Congress created, without clear legal backing. Lawmakers worry that this could set a precedent for the White House to sideline or dismantle any congressionally chartered organization it disagrees with, from public broadcasters to scientific boards.
The episode also raises the specter of executive overreach and the rule of law. Normally, contentious disputes over government authority are resolved in courts before drastic actions are taken. In this case, the administration acted first – sending DOGE forces with law enforcement backup – and forced USIP to seek relief after the fact. Judge Howell’s restrained response (allowing the status quo to stand temporarily) may unintentionally reward that fait accompli approach. It sends a worrying signal: an administration could attempt bold, likely unlawful moves and dare the judiciary to catch up later. “With sweeping actions, Trump tests U.S. constitutional order,” one Reuters analysis noted, pointing to the USIP takeover and similar moves as deliberate challenges to legal norms.
Civil libertarians and former officials are especially troubled by the “weaponization” of police power in what was fundamentally an administrative dispute. Using badged officers to resolve a question of organizational independence – essentially backing one side of a legal argument with the threat of force – is something more reminiscent of authoritarian regimes than of typical U.S. governance. “This is how you deal with squatters, not scholars,” quipped a law professor, who found it extraordinary that MPD treated renowned peacebuilders like trespassers in their own offices. The optics of force at a peace institute were undoubtedly jarring: as if to underscore the irony, USIP staff had been working on global peace initiatives one week, and the next they were literally padlocking their doors against their own government.
Then there is the unique quirk of Washington D.C.’s status, which the USIP saga highlighted. The fact that a presidentially appointed prosecutor (the D.C. U.S. Attorney) can effectively direct the local police is a consequence of D.C. lacking statehood. This incident has galvanized home rule advocates who argue that the District needs more insulation from federal political pressures. If USIP had been a private foundation across the river in Virginia, for example, county police might have been more skeptical of intervening without a court order, and a state attorney general could have weighed in. In D.C., the lines of authority are blurrier, something Congressman Beyer alluded to when he said he went to USIP to exercise “congressional oversight” – implying a vacuum of local oversight
Finally, the confrontation underscores the ideological battle over the so-called “Deep State”. Elon Musk’s DOGE is predicated on the notion that a bloated, unaccountable bureaucracy is thwarting the will of the people, and that aggressive measures are needed to “drain the swamp.” To DOGE’s proponents, the USIP takeover was a bold example of “taking on rogue bureaucrats”. But to its critics, it looked like an assault on institutional autonomy and expertise. USIP’s staff are not partisan operatives; many are respected experts and former diplomats (Moose himself served as Assistant Secretary of State under a Democratic administration).
For them to be summarily replaced by an administration loyalist (Jackson) at the point of a gun raises chilling questions about the future of any institution that produces inconvenient ideas or operates with a degree of independence. “I have to believe that in the long term, that purpose, that mission will be reaffirmed and that we will be allowed to continue,”Moose said of USIP’s work, standing outside the building after his ouster. His hope is that the rule of law – and the vision Congress had for the institute – will ultimately prevail once the immediate political storm passes.
For now, the U.S. Institute of Peace finds itself in uncharted territory: occupied by a team that insists it’s saving taxpayer money, locked in a legal fight for its very existence, and symbolizing a profound test of checks and balances. As the dust settles, many are left asking whether the pursuit of “government efficiency” has come at the expense of core democratic principles. The coming weeks will determine not just the fate of USIP’s leadership, but whether any sanctuary of independent thought truly exists when one branch of government decides it can simply storm in. The stakes of this standoff, it seems, reach far beyond the marble walls of the Institute of Peace.
Sources:
- Kelemen, Michele. “DOGE staff entered the U.S. Institute of Peace with D.C. police help.” NPR (March 18, 2025)
npr.orgnpr.org. - Anderson, Meg. “Law experts raise alarms over police action in DOGE Institute of Peace dispute.” NPR (March 20, 2025)
npr.orgnpr.org. - Scarcella, Mike et al. “Judge declines to bar DOGE from US Institute of Peace after standoff.” Reuters (March 19, 2025)
reuters.comreuters.com. - Megerian, Chris. “Trump administration guts board of US Institute of Peace, DOGE arrives.” AP News (March 17, 2025)
apnews.comapnews.com. - Falconer, Rebecca. “DOGE staff enter US Institute of Peace building after standoff.” Axios (March 18, 2025)
axios.comaxios.com. - Shapero, Julia. “DOGE occupies US Institute of Peace headquarters after White House ousts most of its board.” The Guardian (March 18, 2025)
theguardian.comapnews.com. - Browne, Ryan. “Trump admin guts Institute of Peace of ‘rogue bureaucrats’ after DOGE standoff.” Fox News(March 20, 2025)
foxnews.comfoxnews.com. - New Republic Staff. “Elon Musk’s DOGE Uses Police to Seize Independent Nonprofit.” The New Republic (March 18, 2025)
newrepublic.comnewrepublic.com.