{shortcode-4de21ab166792c8d1482805a9c69a678720a0b69}
Rep. Andy Ogles (R-Tenn.) filed impeachment articles against United States District Court Judge Theodore D. Chuang ’91 — a member of Harvard’s Board of Overseers, the University second-highest governing body — on Monday.
The motion — which makes Chuang at least the sixth federal judge to face impeachment efforts from House Republicans since Trump’s inauguration — comes six days after Chuang ruled that the White House’s efforts to shut down the United States Agency for International Development were likely unconstitutional.
In the impeachment motion, Ogles alleged that Chuang had “marginalized” President Donald Trump’s authority by halting Trump’s efforts to dismantle the USAID and preventing Trump “from responding to threats to our national security posed by USAID employees.”
“While arguing that the Trump Administration’s reorganization of USAID caused “irreparable harm” to the plaintiffs, Judge Chuang failed to consider that his decisions could easily inflict ‘irreparable harm’ on Americans and American interests,” he wrote.
Chuang, a former Crimson Sports editor, declined to comment on the impeachment motion or whether he plans to recuse himself from the case.
Chuang has handed the White House several blows since January, including blocking a Department of Government Efficiency employee from being appointed to the USAID on Thursday and criticizing billionaire Elon Musk’s involvement in DOGE as “highly suspicious” last month.
The Monday motion — which marked Ogles’ third impeachment attempt against a judge — puts one of Harvard’s closest affiliates in a direct standoff with the Trump administration, a development that could complicate the University’s efforts to fly under the White House’s radar and risk pulling it back into the political spotlight.
In a post on X last week, Ogles took aim at Chuang’s work at the Harvard Law Review from 1992 to 1994, when Chuang was a Harvard Law School student.
“This judge literally peddled critical race theory as editor of the Harvard Law Review,” he wrote. “Now he’s trying to save USAID which gives money to terrorist and radical LGBTQ+ propaganda.”
Chuang’s impeachment motion comes amid an unprecedented tug-of-war between the White House and the federal judiciary.
Since Trump’s inauguration, federal judges have blocked a flurry of directives on immigration, federal funding, and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs — decisions that the White House has repeatedly appealed and sometimes flouted.
Shortly after Chuang’s ruling last week against Musk’s involvement in the USAID purge, the White House pledged to appeal the decision, which it called a “miscarriage of justice.”
But in some cases, the White House has also openly defied orders from federal judges seeking to block or pause executive actions. Last week, the Trump administration deported a group of Venezuelan immigrants suspected of gang activity, despite a judge’s order to halt the process. Trump called for the judge’s impeachment just two days later.
Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. ’76 denounced the Trump administration's defiance of judicial orders in a rare statement last Tuesday.
“For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision,” he wrote.
The impeachment motion is the first step in a complex — and rare — impeachment process for a federal judge. In order for Chuang to be removed from the bench, a majority of the House would need to vote to impeach and two-thirds of the Senate would need to vote to convict.
—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.
—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.
