A U.S. district judge reprimanded the Trump administration on Monday for withholding foreign aid, saying its actions likely violated the constitutional separation of powers by unlawfully impounding congressionally approved funds.
Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment via email.
Why It Matters
It comes after the Trump administration said last month it is eliminating more than 90 percent of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s foreign aid contracts and $60 billion in overall U.S. assistance around the world. The cuts are part of Trump’s agenda to drastically cut government spending under the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Trump and DOGE have faced criticism and multiple legal challenges for pursuing such drastic cuts without congressional approval, which some argue is illegal. This ruling reinforces the principle that the executive branch should not bypass Congress‘ authority over government spending and sets a legal precedent that could limit future attempts by any administration to withhold congressionally approved funds without proper justification.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
What To Know
In a Monday ruling, Judge Amir Ali of the US District Court in Washington barred the Trump administration from impounding congressionally appropriated foreign aid funds and to pay USAID bills for existing contracts and grants through February 13.
The ruling also criticized the defendants “unbridled view” of executive power, saying it “flouts multiple statutes whose constitutionality is not in question” and the Administrative Procedure Act, which governs how federal agencies develop and issue regulations.
Ali wrote that the State Department and USAID’s approach of freezing foreign aid contracts at the start of the Trump administration had “dire humanitarian consequences and has devastated businesses and programs across the country.”
The ruling also said that the Trump administration likely violated the constitutional separation of powers by withholding funds and overriding Congress’s authority to determine their allocation.
“The Executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place,” Ali wrote.
The ruling tends to support the widely held position that the president has limited authority to cut foreign aid, but Congress ultimately controls government spending, including foreign assistance. The power of the purse belongs to Congress, which determines how much aid is allocated and to which countries or programs through appropriations bills.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prevents the executive branch from refusing to spend congressionally approved funds unless Congress agrees. However, the president does have some flexibility to pause or reallocate aid temporarily for policy reasons, such as national security concerns.
The lawsuit was filed against the Trump administration by two global health groups, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council.
Ali’s ruling conceded that the plaintiffs likely suffered “irreparable harm” from Trump’s order, which resulted in aid work grinding to a halt in places such as Ethiopia and Sudan, with medicine and food stranded in warehouses.
However, in a setback for the plaintiffs, the judge declined to rule on their claim that the Trump administration’s swift cancellation of foreign assistance contracts was unlawful, stating that it was a separate agency action and should be challenged separately.
While foreign aid refers to the broader financial assistance allocated by the U.S. government for humanitarian, developmental, or military purposes, foreign assistance contracts are the formal agreements that detail how the aid is spent and executed by third-party organizations.
The Supreme Court last week denied the Trump administration’s request to block a previous order from Ali which cleared the way for the State Department and USAID to restart nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments.
What People Are Saying
Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on a post on X on March 10: “After a 6-week review we are officially canceling 83 percent of the programs at USAID. The 5,200 contracts that are now canceled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States.
“In consultation with Congress, we intend for the remaining 18 percent of programs we are keeping (approximately 1,000) to now be administered more effectively under the State Department. Thank you to DOGE and our hardworking staff who worked very long hours to achieve this overdue and historic reform.”
What Happens Next
The Trump administration may appeal the ruling, potentially bringing the case before a higher court. Meanwhile, the government must comply with the judge’s order to release the withheld foreign aid, though the timeline for disbursing the funds remains uncertain.