On Wednesday, a sharply split federal appeals court handed the Trump administration a significant victory, ruling it can pause or terminate billions in foreign aid that Congress had already approved.
In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, according to a report, found that the plaintiffs, groups relying on the grants, failed to meet the legal standards for a preliminary injunction that would restart the funding flow.
The case stems from President Donald Trump’s first day back in the White House for his second term, when he signed an executive order instructing the State Department and U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to halt foreign aid spending. The freeze targeted programs ranging from global health to HIV and AIDS, totaling more than $10 billion. Trump has argued that much of this funding is wasteful and inconsistent with his foreign policy agenda.
RELATED STORIES
READ ALSO: Judge orders Trump administration to reinstate withheld NSF research grants to UCLA
Earlier, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had ordered the administration to release the full amount Congress approved for the 2024 fiscal year. The appeals court’s majority, Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas, overturned part of that ruling, deciding the grantees lacked a valid legal basis for their claims. They also sidestepped the broader question of whether the executive branch violated Congress’ constitutional spending authority.
Watch a recent episode of The BreakDown podcast below and subscribe to our channel PanaGenius TV for latest episodes.
“The parties also dispute the scope of the district court’s remedy but we need not resolve it … because the grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,” Henderson wrote in the opinion.
Judge Florence Pan, dissenting, took aim at the decision, warning it grants the president authority the Supreme Court has already said he does not possess.
“The Supreme Court has held ‘in no uncertain terms’ that the president does not have the authority to disobey laws for policy reasons,” Pan wrote. “Yet that is what the majority enables today. The majority opinion thus misconstrues the separation-of-powers claim brought by the grantees, misapplies precedent, and allows Executive Branch officials to evade judicial review of constitutionally impermissible actions.”
Henderson was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Katsas by Trump, and Pan by President Joe Biden, underscoring the partisan lines that often shape high-stakes legal battles over presidential power.
READ ALSO: Court weighs Trump’s use of troops in Los Angeles immigration raids
