{"id":38913,"date":"2025-03-09T13:45:00","date_gmt":"2025-03-09T13:45:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=38913"},"modified":"2025-03-09T18:29:36","modified_gmt":"2025-03-09T18:29:36","slug":"how-trumps-2b-court-battle-over-foreign-aid-could-reshape-executive-authority","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/how-trumps-2b-court-battle-over-foreign-aid-could-reshape-executive-authority\/","title":{"rendered":"How Trump\u2019s $2B court battle over foreign aid could reshape executive authority"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Charles Wise<\/a>, The Ohio State University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amid the chaos of the Trump administration\u2019s first few weeks in office, a court case regarding the president\u2019s legal right<\/a> to stop payment of nearly US$2 billion in U.S. Agency for International Development contracts poses an important legal question whose answer may show just how strong the country\u2019s separation of powers actually is.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Jan. 20, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order pausing all foreign aid funding, most of which is administered by USAID. A little more than two weeks later, USAID laid off all but a few hundred<\/a> of its 10,000 workers.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary order on Feb. 13 for the administration to not end or pause any existing foreign aid contracts \u2013 and again ordered on Feb. 25 that the administration needed to pay the $2 billion owed to various aid organizations for completed work.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

After the Trump administration filed an emergency appeal of the decision to the Supreme Court, the justices, in a 5-4 ruling<\/a> on March 5, found that the federal judge\u2019s decision can temporarily take effect while the district court considers the merits of the case.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, the Trump administration is facing a deadline imposed by Judge Ali of 11 a.m. on March 10, 2025<\/a>, to announce a new timeline for delivering the frozen foreign aid payments.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Amy Lieberman, a politics and society editor at The Conversation U.S., spoke with Charles Wise<\/a>, an expert on public administration and law, to understand what is fueling this court case and why it has become a test of how far Trump can push the boundaries of presidential power.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Two
Supreme Court Justices Brett Kavanaugh, left, Amy Coney Barrett, center, and former Justice Anthony Kennedy speak with President Donald Trump after his speech at the U.S. Capitol in March 4, 2025. Chip Somodevilla\/Getty Images<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What is most important to understand about the Supreme Court\u2019s ruling on USAID funding?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Trump administration issued a blanket executive order freezing all USAID funds on Jan. 20, 2025<\/a>. There have been many twists and turns in this case since then, but the Washington, D.C., district court determined in February that the organizations that receive USAID funding to deliver food or health care to people in need, as well as other recipients of USAID money in foreign countries, would suffer irreparable harm.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., also said that the administration did not follow proper procedures in the law. The Administrative Procedure Act<\/a> has a set of standards that requires the president to do certain things before making any unilateral kind of action to withhold funds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court\u2019s March 5 order is not the final ruling<\/a> on the case, but it does allow the U.S. District Court decision to stand \u2013 at least for now. This ruling requires the government to release funds to USAID recipients. The Supreme Court\u2019s decision also directs the district court to clarify what the government must do to comply with the district court\u2019s order, including considering the feasibility of the timeline within which the government must release the money.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is all taking place in a very short time frame, in the context of the D.C. district court issuing a temporary restraining order. It is saying: Let\u2019s freeze the existing situation in place so we can have a full hearing on this issue.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why is this case important?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Any administration is prohibited from just withholding funds for any program it doesn\u2019t like without following the procedures prescribed by law. This case matters because the D.C. district court\u2019s decision puts boundaries on what the Trump administration can do to withhold funds that Congress has appropriated. It forces the administration to follow the laws that Congress and previous presidents have agreed on and adopted.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It ultimately comes down to a contest between the branches of government, and, specifically, the presidency and Congress. This is where Articles 1 and 2 of the U.S. Constitution \u2013 and how they divided powers between the president and Congress \u2013 comes in. The Trump administration claimed<\/a> that the court should have respected the president\u2019s Article 2 powers<\/a> to administer the federal government\u2019s spending. The D.C. court acknowledged the president\u2019s powers under Article 2 but said it has to be balanced against Congress\u2019 right, under Article 1<\/a>, to appropriate funds.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"A
A terminated federal worker leaves the offices of the U.S. Agency for International Development in Washington, D.C., on Feb. 28, 2025, after being fired. Bryan Dozier\/Middle East\/AFP via Getty Images<\/a><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

What happens if Trump and his administration do not abide by this order?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Trump\u2019s officials have a decision to make. Are they going to follow the executive order or the court\u2019s order? That\u2019s not a fun place to be. Administrative officials take an oath to uphold the Constitution and the laws of the U.S., which subjects them to court decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The president himself is not responsible for distributing USAID funds. State Department officials are responsible for dispersing the funds, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio was appointed as the acting administrator of USAID<\/a> on Feb. 3, 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Rubio and other officials refuse to comply with the court\u2019s order, the D.C. judge, Amir Ali, can hold those officials in contempt of court. Ali has a variety of tools he can use \u2013 one is to levy fines against them individually. He could say they have to pay a thousand dollars per day for each day they don\u2019t execute the court\u2019s order.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

What will happen next in this case?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court said in a brief opinion on March 5 that the Feb. 26, 2025, deadline for the government to pay USAID and its contractors had already passed and instructed Ali to \u201cclarify what obligations the Government must fulfill<\/a> to ensure compliance\u201d with paying USAID.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The government has argued to the court that the timeline the judge initially set was too fast \u2013 they couldn\u2019t do it that fast.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Now, a few things are going to happen. Ali has ordered the government to develop and release a new schedule to release funds and to have that ready by March 10.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The second part is that the district court judge will probably schedule a hearing on the merits of the case, in which Ali will be assessing the administration\u2019s argument about whether the administration has violated the Administrative Procedure Act. Ultimately, the Trump administration could appeal Ali\u2019s decision, and the case could wind up back at the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Charles Wise<\/a>, Professor Emeritus of Public Affairs, The Ohio State University<\/a><\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

This article is republished from The Conversation<\/a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article<\/a>.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Charles Wise, The Ohio State University Amid the chaos of the Trump administration\u2019s first few weeks in office, a court case regarding the president\u2019s legal right to stop payment of nearly US$2 billion in U.S. Agency for International Development contracts poses an important legal question whose answer may show just how strong the country\u2019s separation […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":38914,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[5,46,295,36,4,15533,38],"tags":[479,443,885,891,886,860,478,16041,5785,1602,1797,686,14075,1666,2392],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38913"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=38913"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38913\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":38915,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/38913\/revisions\/38915"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/38914"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=38913"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=38913"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=38913"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}