On Tuesday night, attorneys for the Trump administration took decisive action by filing an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court. They are seeking to lift a lower court’s injunction that has held up nearly $12 billion in foreign aid spending previously approved by Congress. This appeal marks the second time in just six months that this issue has made its way back to the highest court.
The crux of the matter centers on funding allocated to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Most of these funds were cut shortly after President Trump assumed office, under his broader initiative to reduce foreign aid and eliminate what he called “waste, fraud, and abuse.” In the emergency filing, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned that if the Supreme Court does not intervene, the administration would be forced to “rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds” due by September 30, the end of the fiscal year.
Legal battles surrounding these payments have persisted for months since President Trump signed an executive order on his first day back in office earlier this year. This order aimed to halt most foreign aid spending, aligning with his administration’s focus on reducing inefficiencies. However, a federal judge in Washington, D.C., blocked that order, compelling the Trump administration to resume payments on billions in USAID project funding, a decision that was recently overturned by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The appeals court ruled 2-1 against a request from foreign aid groups aiming to restore grant payments. They determined that the plaintiffs did not adequately demonstrate that Trump had exceeded his executive authority in withholding funds. Judge Karen L. Henderson, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, emphasized that the plaintiffs did not possess the proper legal standing to sue the Trump administration concerning its withholding of funds.
Despite the appeals court’s ruling, it has yet to issue a mandate, which means Judge Ali’s original order and the previously outlined payment schedule remain in effect for the time being. Sauer argued in the Supreme Court appeal that the foreign aid groups lack the legal authority to challenge the executive’s decisions, noting that the authority over such matters is governed by the Impoundment Control Act.
“Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits,” Sauer said, emphasizing the importance of preserving the boundaries of authority between the branches of government. He contended that any disputes over fiscal decisions made by the President should be managed by the political branches, rather than being preemptively resolved in court.
On the other side of the issue, the plaintiffs argue that the executive branch does not have the power to withhold funds that have already been allocated by Congress under both the Impoundment Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. Their legal stance is that withholding these funds lacks a solid legal foundation and undermines the appropriative authority vested in Congress.
This ongoing legal duel highlights not only the contentious nature of foreign aid funding but also the fundamental questions surrounding executive authority and legislative power. As the Supreme Court prepares to weigh in once again, both supporters and detractors of these foreign aid policies are watching closely, knowing that the outcome could significantly influence the future of the Trump administration’s foreign aid strategy.
"*" indicates required fields
