Appeals court says Trump officials can withhold billions in foreign aid

A federal appeals court on Wednesday ruled that the Trump administration can withhold tens of billions of dollars in foreign aid, handing the president a significant — if possibly temporary — victory in his push to exercise greater authority over spending mandated by Congress.

A panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted a federal judge’s preliminary injunction that ordered the Trump administration to appropriate the money for food, medicine and development. The 2-1 ruling came over the sharp objections of the only Democratic-appointed judge on the panel.

The panel majority, which included judges appointed by Republicans George H.W. Bush and Donald Trump, found international aid groups that sued over Trump’s sweeping freeze on foreign assistance did not have standing to bring a lawsuit.

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

Plaintiffs quickly announced they would ask for a review by the full, 15-judge D.C. Circuit court. They have accused the Trump administration of seeking to withhold the funding until it expires at the end of the fiscal year, on Sept. 30, as more than 60,000 metric tons of food aid — some rotting — sits undelivered in warehouses.

The three-judge panel did not rule on the broader issue of whether Trump had the power to impound spending approved by Congress, which has emerged as a major flash point in Trump’s second term as he’s held up allocations across the government. Critics have accused Trump of usurping Congress’s constitutionally mandated power of the purse.

Judge Florence Y. Pan, an appointee of President Joe Biden, echoed that argument in her dissent.

“At bottom, the court’s acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive’s unlawful behavior derails the ‘carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power’ that serves as the ‘greatest security against tyranny — the accumulation of excessive authority in a single branch,’” Pan wrote, partially quoting a previous ruling.

Trump announced a freeze on billions of dollars in foreign aid as one of his first acts in office in January, saying the spending was not aligned with American values or interests. The move prompted lawsuits by international aid groups and warnings of a humanitarian crisis.

A recent study in The Lancet predicted the cuts could lead to up to 14 million additional deaths — including 4 million to 5 million children under the age of 5 — by 2030. AIDS cases were also expected to spike in Africa.

“Today’s decision is a significant setback for the rule of law and risks further erosion of basic separation of powers principles,” Lauren Bateman, an attorney for one of the plaintiffs, Public Citizen Litigation Group, said in a statement. “In the meantime, countless people will suffer disease, starvation and death.”

The Trump administration dismantled the U.S. Agency for International Development, which administered much of the aid, and folded it into the State Department, laying off thousands of employees. The administration also canceled more than 10,000 foreign aid awards issued through USAID and the State Department.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali announced a temporary restraining order on part of the freeze in February, which resulted in a major legal showdown. Ali found the Trump administration had failed to restart the flow about $2 billion for work already completed, eventually setting a 36-hour deadline for Trump officials to comply.

The Trump administration appealed that ruling to the Supreme Court, which stayed the deadline, but ultimately found Ali could order the Trump administration to restart the funding.

Ali issued a preliminary injunction against the funding freeze in March, finding Trump did not have the authority to withhold the aid and did not have any intention of spending it. Ali said Trump officials had to reallocate the billions of dollars for the 10,000 aid awards they canceled.

Trump officials have said they planned to comply with any court orders. But they have done little to allocate the money in the five months since the order was issued.