Trump Admin's Plans for $500 Million USIP Building May Violate Court Order, Say Former Workers

Last year, the Trump administration and members of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) forcibly took over the US Institute of Peace (USIP), an independent nonprofit. Since then, the organization’s fired board and employees have been fighting to regain control of the USIP building in Washington, DC and for the reinstatement of their jobs in a drawn-out court battle.

Now, in a letter sent to the Department of Justice (DOJ), representatives for the USIP’s fired board and employees argue that the administration is violating a court-issued stay by making physical changes to the building and, to their understanding, moving ahead with new agreements. Specifically, the letter asks for information on whether the State Department has signed an agreement to use the building for the “Board of Peace,” a new international organization under the personal lifetime control of President Donald Trump that seeks to oversee the reconstruction of Gaza.

“They’re acting under the stay as though they have a license to use the building, to use money, to treat the building any way they want,” says George Foote, counsel for former USIP leadership and staff. “A stay is not permission for the loser of a case to hijack the property of the winning party.”

On March 17, 2025 members of DOGE arrived at USIP and forced their way into the $500 million building; shortly after, the Trump administration fired most of the organization’s board. USIP, though created and funded by Congress, is an independent entity, not a federal agency. This did not stop Trump from issuing an executive order purporting to essentially close USIP.

In May, a court held that the administration’s takeover of USIP’s building and firing of its staff were unlawful; the next month, an appeals court issued a stay on that ruling. This returned the building to the administration’s control while a federal appeals case is ongoing.

In December, the Trump administration renamed the building the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace, even affixing the president’s name to its edifice. But this, apparently, was only the beginning.

According to the letter, “USIP’s current acting president has recently signed a ten-year

memorandum of understanding (‘MOU’) with the State Department, under which hundreds of State Department employees will move into USIP’s building.” The letter alleges that under the terms of this agreement, USIP will be responsible for the building’s upkeep and security costs, and the State Department will be indemnified against responsibility for damage to USIP property. To accommodate an influx of new people, the letter alleges, “construction is already underway to modify working spaces in the USIP building.” These renovations, the letter argues, could cause “impose substantial, expensive, and unwarranted obstacles” should USIP ultimately win back control of the building in the final court case.

Which State Department staff would be housed at the USIP building is unclear, but a presentation given at the World Economic Forum by the president’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, has raised alarms on the part of USIP’sformer staff and board. Kushner used a slide deck to outline the plans for the new “Board of Peace” and the redevelopment of Gaza; an image of the USIP building was the final slide. The letter asks the government to “confirm whether the Administration has plans to house the ‘Board of Peace’ at the USIP headquarters building.”

“The government does not have a license to rename the USIP headquarters building or lease it out for 10 years. It certainly has no right to open the building to a new international organization like the proposed Board of Peace,” says Foote.

The letter also asks for confirmation of the funds that are in USIP’s endowment, which Foote says he is concerned may be used “to remodel the building for purposes of that State Department lease, therefore using our donor money for the benefit of the State Department.”

The State Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment.