Federal Judge Rules on Trump Administration's Foreign Aid Cuts
A U.S. judge mandates the Trump administration to resume foreign aid payments while declining to restore mass contract cancellations.
Overview
A federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to fulfill certain foreign aid payment obligations under existing contracts, although he did not reinstate all rescinded contracts. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the administration's previous suspension of congressionally appropriated funds violated administrative laws, and the nonprofits pursuing legal action are likely to succeed. However, the judge deferred decisions regarding proactive reviews conducted after mid-February, allowing for some mass terminations to stand. This ruling highlights ongoing tensions between legislative spending authority and executive powers in foreign aid distribution.
Content generated by AI—learn more or report issue.
Read both sides in 5 minutes each day
Analysis
- The court ruled that the Trump administration's blanket suspension of foreign aid payments was likely arbitrary and capricious, violating federal laws.
- The ruling requires the acceleration of nearly $2 billion in payments for completed work contracted under USAID, while stopping short of reversing all mass contract cancellations made after mid-February.
- The case highlights the constitutional necessity of collaboration between Congress and the executive branch in administering foreign aid.
Articles (3)
FAQ
The Trump administration was initially ordered to pay nearly $2 billion in debts to partners of USAID and the State Department. However, the exact amount due by the latest deadline was not specified but could be several hundred million dollars.
The judge declined to restore all canceled contracts because he found that the administration must speed up payments for already completed work but did not order the reinstatement of canceled contracts.
The Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration's appeal to freeze foreign aid payments, instructing the lower court to clarify compliance with its earlier order to release funds for completed work.
The ruling highlights ongoing tensions between legislative spending authority and executive powers, as critics argue that the administration's actions threaten the separation of powers by overriding Congress's spending authority.
History
- This story does not have any previous versions.