On Wednesday, a federal appeals court lifted an injunction that had compelled the U.S. State Department to continue making foreign aid payments, representing a victory for President Donald Trump.
In a 2-1 decision, a three-judge panel from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit determined that a lower court had erred in mandating the Trump administration to resume foreign assistance payments that had previously received Congressional approval.
On January 20, coinciding with his second inauguration, Trump issued an executive order imposing a 90-day suspension on all foreign aid. This order was succeeded by extensive measures aimed at reducing the operations of USAID, the principal U.S. foreign aid agency, which included placing a significant portion of its personnel on leave and contemplating the integration of the once-independent agency into the State Department, as reported by Reuters.
Two federally funded nonprofit organizations — the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network — filed a lawsuit, contending that Trump’s funding freeze was illegal. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden, subsequently directed the administration to disburse nearly $2 billion in pending aid to global humanitarian partners, according to the outlet.
In her opinion for the two-judge majority, U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson remarked that the nonprofit organizations “lack a cause of action to press their claims” and therefore did not meet the legal requirements necessary for an injunction.
Henderson stated that only the U.S. Government Accountability Office — a federal oversight body — possesses the authority to contest a president’s decision to withhold foreign aid funding.
Henderson, who was appointed to the appeals court by President George H.W. Bush, emphasized that the ruling did not consider whether Trump’s foreign aid freeze infringed upon the Constitution by interfering with Congress’s spending authority. Her opinion was supported by Circuit Judge Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee.
In a dissenting opinion, Circuit Judge Florence Pan, who was appointed by Biden, contended that the ruling permitted the Trump administration to disregard federal law and weaken the separation of powers established by the Constitution.
“The court’s acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive’s unlawful behavior derails the carefully crafted system of checks and balances that serves as the greatest safeguard against tyranny – the concentration of excessive power in a single Branch,” Pan stated, as reported by Reuters.
A representative from the Office of Management and Budget, which serves as the budget office for the White House, remarked that the appeals court decision prevents “radical left dark money groups” from “maliciously interfering with the president’s ability to spend responsibly and to administer foreign aid in a lawful manner in alignment with his America First policies.”
Additionally, the administration achieved another victory in the nation’s highest court this week.
The Supreme Court narrowed the scope of environmental studies required for significant infrastructure projects, which could expedite the permitting process for highways, airports, and pipelines.
This ruling represents the latest setback for environmental advocates at the court, which has recently invalidated measures designed to protect wetlands and curb cross-state air pollution.
Trump has often criticized the government’s environmental assessment procedures as excessively burdensome.
Justice Brett Kavanaugh authored the court’s ruling without any dissent. Ultimately, both liberal and conservative justices concurred with the final decision.
Kavanaugh determined that the environmental concerns in the case—an 88-mile railway intended to transport waxy crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin to existing rail networks—were “not close.”
“Courts should grant significant deference and should not micromanage those agency decisions as long as they remain within a broad zone of reasonableness,” Kavanaugh wrote.
“In simple terms, NEPA serves as a procedural safeguard rather than a substantive hindrance,” he subsequently remarked. “The objective of the legislation is to enhance agency decision-making, not to obstruct it.”
The three liberal justices of the court, Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, concurred with the ruling but articulated distinct justifications. Sotomayor, speaking on behalf of the trio, contended that federal agencies ought to confine their environmental assessments to their specific domains of expertise.
