Summary
- The appeals court allows Trump to cut billions in
foreign aid. - Court overturns lower court’s order to restore funds.
- Grant recipients lack legal standing to challenge cuts.
- Only the Government Accountability Office can sue over
impoundment. - Ruling supports Trump’s broader effort to reduce
federal spending.
A prior injunction requiring the Department of
State to begin payments, including around $4 billion for the US Agency for
International Development (USAID) and $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs, was
overturned by a two-to-one decision on Wednesday.
However, the appeals court’s majority ruling did
not consider the merits of Trump’s ability to revoke monies that Congress had
approved.
Rather, it made a decision based on the notion that the plaintiffs lacked the legal foundation
necessary to be eligible for a court order.
Circuit Judge Karen Henderson stated in her
majority opinion that the aforementioned parties “lack a cause of action
to press their claims.” Among them are federally funded organizations the
Journalism Development Network and the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition.
“The grantees have failed to satisfy the
requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,”
wrote Henderson, who
was appointed by former President George HW Bush.
She was joined in her decision by Gregory
Katsas, a Trump appointee.
However, the panel’s third judge — Florence Pan,
nominated under former President Joe Biden — issued a dissenting opinion that
argued Trump should not be allowed to violate the separation of powers by
cutting the aid.
“The court’s acquiescence in and facilitation of
the Executive’s unlawful behaviour derails the carefully crafted system of
checked and balanced power that serves as the greatest security against tyranny
— the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch,”
Pan wrote in her
opinion.
By March, the Trump administration had declared
its intention to essentially dismantle USAID by integrating it into the State
Department. In the same month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced that he
had terminated contracts with USAID in 83 percent of cases.
Reducing “waste” and “bloat”
in the government was one of Trump’s justifications for these reforms.
Additionally, he aimed to better match his “America First” policy
with government programming.
However, some contend that the executive branch
lacks the authority to dismantle agencies that are established by Congress.
Additionally, they contend that Congress has the authority to allocate cash for
help, portraying Trump’s actions as an attempt to exercise excessive
presidential authority.
In a recent ruling, US District Judge Amir Ali
held that the Trump administration was required to reimburse humanitarian
organizations and other contractors who collaborated with the government to
disburse supplies.
According to an estimate made by administration
officials in February, $2 billion in unpaid aid was due by the date Judge Ali
set.
However, lawsuits to return foreign aid to the
contractors have been pushed back by the appeals court’s decision.
The Department of Justice will “continue to
successfully protect core Presidential authorities from judicial
overreach,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi, who praised the ruling on
Wednesday.
What legal arguments allowed the Trump
administration to bypass congressional authority?
The administration asserted that all executive
power is vested solely in the president under Article II of the Constitution.
This theory holds that executive agencies derive their constitutional authority
primarily from the president rather than congressional delegation, allowing the
president to override or ignore congressional statutes that restrict executive
actions.
The administration argued presidential orders
“trump” laws and that agency officials must comply with presidential
directives above other laws. This theory challenges traditional checks and
balances by prioritizing executive power over congressional oversight.
The administration challenged the limits imposed
by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which restricts the president’s power
to withhold congressionally appropriated funds.
