Appeals court says Trump can move forward with foreign aid cuts

By Caroline Boda
The Center Square

A federal appeals court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration can cut billions of dollars in foreign aid that had been appropriated by Congress.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled 2-1 in the White House’s favor, finding the lawsuit brought forth by aid organizations lacked the legal right to challenge President Donald Trump’s actions.

In a day-one executive order, Trump directed the U.S. Agency for International Development to freeze foreign aid payments, a move that was eventually blocked by a district judge in March. Wednesday’s ruling reversed the district judge’s decision and allows the Trump administration to proceed in its plans to significantly shrink U.S. assistance abroad.

The aid groups who filed the lawsuit claimed the White House did not have authority to block funds appropriated by the legislative branch. In its decision Wednesday, the appeals court avoided the question of constitutionality and rather ruled on the grounds that the groups lacked legal authority to sue.

U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson, appointed by former President George H.W. Bush, wrote on behalf of the majority.

“The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims,” Henderson wrote.

The court’s decision stated that while the nonprofits do not have sufficient cause to sue the Trump administration over its cuts to foreign aid, Congress’ legislative watchdog does have the legal authority to do so. The court said the 1974 Impoundment Control Act gives the legislative branch’s Government Accountability Office power to challenge Trump’s actions if it chooses to do so.

Judge Florence Pan, an appointee of former President Joe Biden, dissented. She argued that the president does not have authority to rescind money allocated by the legislative branch.

“The court’s holding that the grantees have no constitutional cause of action is as startling as it is erroneous,” Pan said. “The majority holds that when the president refuses to spend funds appropriated by Congress based on policy disagreements, that is merely a statutory violation and raises no constitutional alarm bells.”