Court decision enables Trump administration to reduce foreign aid by billions
In a series of legal battles over the Trump administration's attempts to freeze and reduce U.S. foreign aid, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has recently overruled a lower court's decision, allowing the administration to cut billions in foreign aid funding this year.
The court's ruling, which came in August 2025, marked a significant shift from earlier decisions that had temporarily blocked some of the administration's funding cuts. The decision has potential implications for U.S. global health policy and the structure of foreign aid implementation agencies.
The legal saga began when President Trump's administration took aggressive executive actions aimed at freezing all U.S. foreign aid, dissolving USAID—the main agency responsible for U.S. global health and aid programs—and reorganizing the State Department. This created a legal and political conflict over Congress-approved aid funding.
Early court actions issued temporary restraining orders (TROs) to freeze foreign aid cuts, temporarily blocking the administration from implementing the aid freeze. However, the U.S. Supreme Court denied the government’s request to vacate one of these TROs, sending the matter back to the district court for further proceedings.
Despite some initial court victories for non-profits and advocates against the funding cuts, recent rulings have moved in favor of the Trump administration. A federal appeals court reversed a lower court ruling, thereby clearing the way for the administration to cut billions in foreign aid funding in 2025.
Notably, Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, criticized her colleagues for ignoring the concern that the funding cuts were unconstitutional. Pan wrote that the court's acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive's unlawful behavior derails the system of checked and balanced power.
It is important to note that only the head of the Government Accountability Office has the authority to sue under the Impoundment Control Act, as determined by earlier rulings. This means that non-profit organizations lack the standing to bring a case challenging the administration's funding cuts.
The court's decision pertains to USAID funding that had already been approved by Congress. However, the ongoing legal battles illustrate the tension between executive authority and congressional appropriations power regarding foreign aid budgets, raising constitutional and policy debates.
Despite losing a recent court bid to compel restoration of Congress-approved aid funding, non-profit organizations have expressed intent to continue legal challenges. This indicates that challenges to aid cuts will persist, possibly affecting the long-term stability and planning of U.S. foreign assistance programs.
In summary, court rulings have evolved from blocking to permitting the Trump administration’s foreign aid cuts, with significant consequences for U.S. global health policy and the structure of foreign aid implementation agencies. Legal contests are ongoing as stakeholders continue to fight over the extent of executive power in this domain.
Read also:
- Deepwater Port Construction Permits for Projects within the South Central Region's Air Regulations
- Citizen Thekla Walker, Minister, urges: "Let's face our responsibilities at home"
- Editorial Correspondence: Justifying the Elimination of a Program Earmarked for Reducing Our Own Carbon Footprint?
- Parliamentary proceedings in Germany's Bundestag this week
