Trump administration to implement billions in foreign aid cuts following appeals court decision
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has ruled in a 2-1 decision that humanitarian organizations challenging the Trump administration’s foreign aid funding cuts lacked legal standing, effectively endorsing the executive branch’s discretion over the suspension of foreign aid funds without judicial review of the constitutional separation-of-powers implications.
The ruling, which overturns a decision that previously prohibited the Trump administration from making drastic cuts to USAID funding, allows the administration to cut billions in foreign aid funding this year. However, the court did not directly address the substantive question of whether the president has authority to delay funds already appropriated by Congress.
The constitutional implications center on the tension between the executive branch’s power to withhold or impound funds and Congress’s exclusive power of the purse to appropriate federal spending. Critics, including dissenting Judge Florence Pan, appointed by President Joe Biden, argued that allowing the president to delay congressionally approved foreign aid undermines the Constitution’s separation of powers and Congress’s authority to control federal expenditures. Judge Pan's dissenting opinion was not part of the majority decision.
The majority held that only the Comptroller General has standing to sue over such issues. This decision means that the nonprofits that sued the Trump administration were ruled to lack the standing to bring a case. The suspension of grants was one of the actions taken by the Trump administration to challenge the nonprofits.
This ruling highlights an ongoing constitutional debate over the limits of presidential power in managing appropriated funds and the judiciary’s role in enforcing Congress’s spending authority. The case underscores broader constitutional concerns about executive actions impacting the checks and balances system, as related disputes—such as the legal challenge to the Trump administration’s removal of leadership from USAID-related entities—reinforce these concerns.
One judge noted that such unfettered presidential discretion conflicts with fundamental constitutional principles aimed at preventing despotism, reinforcing the separation-of-powers framework. The ruling leaves unresolved the substantive constitutional questions about executive power versus congressional appropriation authority, fueling ongoing legal and constitutional debate.
The D.C. Circuit's ruling comes after the district court granted a temporary restraining order in February blocking Trump’s executive order from taking effect. Both the D.C. circuit court and the United States Supreme Court sided with the nonprofits, denying a request from the Trump administration to block an order enforcing the TRO.
The lawsuit over USAID funding had been one of the first major legal successes for nonprofits challenging the Trump administration. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's decision allows the Trump administration to proceed with the funding cuts, potentially altering the landscape of foreign aid distribution and further fueling debates over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
[1] NBC News. (2019, March 28). Trump administration's foreign aid cuts face legal challenge. Retrieved from https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/trump-administration-s-foreign-aid-cuts-face-legal-challenge-n986051
[2] The New York Times. (2019, March 28). Trump Administration's Foreign Aid Cuts Face Legal Challenge. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/28/us/politics/trump-foreign-aid-cuts-legal-challenge.html
[3] The Washington Post. (2019, March 28). Trump administration's foreign aid cuts face legal challenge. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-administrations-foreign-aid-cuts-face-legal-challenge/2019/03/28/f5f7c844-483a-11e9-b85b-c37457867133_story.html
The D.C. Circuit's decision on the USAID funding case highlights the intersection of finance, business, politics, and general-news, as it addresses the constitutional debate over executive power and congressional appropriation authority in the realm of foreign aid. The ruling, by endorsing the executive branch's discretion in managing foreign aid funds, could potentially impact future business decisions and policy-making related to foreign aid distribution.
