Filed Date: July 28, 2025
Case Ongoing
Clearinghouse coding complete
This case challenged the mass termination of United States Agency for International Development ("USAID") Personal Services Contractor ("PSC") contractors by the United States Government. USAID was created in 1961 and was responsible for administering civilian foreign aid and development assistance. PSCs allowed USAID to contract with individuals who agreed to provide their services to USAID.
On July 28, 2025, plaintiff, Andrea Danziger, sued the U.S. Government for their mass termination of USAID PSC contractors on behalf of herself and those similarly situated in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. She asked the court to certify a class of “all personal services contractors, performing work for USAID, whose contracts were terminated by USAID via Termination Notices issued between February 12, 2025, and April 24, 2025.”
Danziger had worked as a PSC for USAID, providing “Humanitarian Assistance Officer functions to overseas countries” since 2021. But in early 2025, the top government officials in the Trump Administration, including Elon Musk, began to express a desire to dismantle the agency and subsequently began terminating PSC contractors like Danziger, sending them boiler-plate termination letters. Plaintiff alleged that these letters did not follow procedures for termination set out in PSC contractors’ initial contracts and were thus unlawful. According to plaintiff, while PSCs could be terminated for convenience, the government could not terminate them for “convenience in bad faith or by abusing its discretion,” which is what the government had done to her and those similarly situated.
Along with class certification, plaintiff asked that the court find the contract terminations unlawful and award contract breach money damages to all class members to compensate for their unlawful termination, including lost compensation and all termination costs. In the alternative, plaintiff asked that if the court were to find that the contract terminations were unlawful, that the court still certify the class and award damages to all class members to compensate them for all termination costs owed under contract.
The case was assigned to Judge David A. Tapp on July 29. A couple months later, on September 30, the Government filed a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss. The Government claimed that plaintiff had failed to state a claim upon which relief could be granted because she did not sufficiently allege that the Government had acted in bad faith or abused its discretion when it terminated her contract. The government also claimed that, since costs due under the contract’s termination clause had been paid, plaintiff had failed to claim that the Government had breached the termination clause of her contract. Finally, the Government claimed that plaintiff had not shown that she was similarly situated to all other PSC contractors and thus had failed to sufficiently allege a class action.
With this motion still pending, Judge Tapp stayed the case due to the government shutdown on October 6.
This case is ongoing.
Summary Authors
Claire Pollard (9/29/2025)
Madeline Kaplan (10/17/2025)
For PACER's information on parties and their attorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70954805/parties/danziger-v-united-states/
Tapp, David Austin (- United States (national) -)
McBrady, Stephen John (- United States (national) -)
Fleming, Stephanie (- United States (national) -)
See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/70954805/danziger-v-united-states/
Last updated Nov. 2, 2025, 4:47 a.m.
State / Territory:
Case Type(s):
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority
Special Collection(s):
Trump Administration 2.0: Challenges to the Government
Key Dates
Filing Date: July 28, 2025
Case Ongoing: Yes
Plaintiffs
Plaintiff Description:
USIAD Personal Services Contractor who was terminated in early 2025 and those similarly situated, which includes "all personal services contractors, performing work for USAID, whose contracts were terminated by USAID via Termination Notices issued between February 12, 2025, and April 24, 2025."
Plaintiff Type(s):
Public Interest Lawyer: No
Filed Pro Se: No
Class Action Sought: Yes
Class Action Outcome: Pending
Defendants
United States of America, Federal
Defendant Type(s):
Case Details
Causes of Action:
Other Dockets:
U.S. Court of Federal Claims 1:25-cv-01241
Available Documents:
Outcome
Prevailing Party: None Yet / None
Nature of Relief:
Source of Relief:
Issues
Presidential/Gubernatorial Authority: