2LT International News

WASHINGTON, D.C.: A split federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration can halt or cancel billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress.

In a 2–1 decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found that the groups challenging the aid freeze had not met the legal standard for a preliminary injunction to restart the funding. The ruling effectively allows the administration to maintain its freeze on the money while the case continues.

On January 20, the first day of his second term, President Donald Trump signed an executive order directing the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to suspend foreign aid spending. The order affected almost US$4 billion earmarked for USAID’s global health initiatives and more than $6 billion for HIV/AIDS programs. Trump has described such spending as wasteful and inconsistent with his foreign policy priorities.

Several grant recipients sued, arguing the freeze violated Congress’s constitutional power over spending. In February, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali sided with them, ordering the administration to release the full amount Congress had allocated for the 2024 budget year.

The appeals court’s majority—Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas—partially overturned that order, saying the plaintiffs lacked a valid legal basis for their claims. They emphasized that the decision did not address whether the administration had overstepped constitutional limits on executive power.

“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 majority opinion.

In a vigorous dissent, Judge Florence Pan argued that Supreme Court precedent makes clear that a president cannot disregard laws for policy reasons. “Yet that is what the majority enables today,” she wrote, accusing the majority of misreading the plaintiffs’ separation-of-powers claim, misapplying case law, and allowing the executive branch to evade judicial review.

The judges’ backgrounds reflect the partisan divide in the case: Henderson was appointed by President George H.W. Bush, Katsas by Trump, and Pan by President Joe Biden.