Understanding the Supreme Court's Decision on USAID Funding
The U.S. Supreme Court has limited the scope of President Donald Trump’s authority to temporarily halt federal funding for foreign assistance.
In January, President Trump issued an executive order cutting off foreign aid funding through the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department (USAID). The Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and other nonprofit aid groups affected by the funding freeze filed a federal lawsuit contesting President Trump's authority to unilaterally cut off funding. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, issued an order directing the Trump administration to lift the freeze and release the funds.
President Trump refused and asked the Supreme Court to intervene. After Judge Ali's third order to unfreeze the funds, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary halt on Judge Ali's order. On March 5, however, SCOTUS lifted the halt on the order. This means the White House must obey the federal court’s decision and resume foreign aid disbursements.
President Trump vs. USAID Programs
USAID provides aid and support to people in other countries. Its goal is to reduce poverty and create a healthier world by funding projects that provide schools, healthcare, and clean water. Shortly after Trump took office, his administration, including advisor Elon Musk, began a review of how the U.S. spends its money. Trump campaigned on stopping wasteful spending of U.S. taxpayer dollars, including how organizations like USAID spend money overseas.
As part of this review, he paused billions of dollars in funding for USAID, saying he needed time to ensure the money was being used effectively and aligned with U.S. interests. USAID plaintiffs argued the pause would cause a humanitarian crisis and lead to the loss of life. Plus, foreign aid payments were already owed to contractors for work that had already been completed.
Legal Arguments
The main issue between President Trump and USAID is the separation of powers between the branches of government. USAID argues that Trump’s freeze on foreign aid violates federal law, including the Administrative Procedure Act. They also argue it is an unconstitutional exercise of presidential authority, as Congress sets the federal budget as outlined in Article I, section 9 of the U.S. Constitution. This is commonly referred to as the appropriations clause.
The Trump administration claims it has the right to evaluate and control how aid is distributed and ensure it’s being used appropriately and effectively to promote American interests in foreign affairs. They argue that the president has the authority to review and cancel federal spending, even if it’s under laws already approved by Congress. This policy is known as “impounding” and allows a president to withhold spending money even if Congress has previously authorized spending it. However, this has historically been limited by the Impoundment Control Act, and the President needs to obtain congressional approval before freezing its spending.
Order Upheld
The Supreme Court upheld the district court's order. This means that the Trump administration must stop its freeze on foreign aid and resume payments. However, the order at issue in the appeal is a temporary restraining order, not a decision on the merits of the case. While dissenting Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh took issue with calling it a TRO, instead of what they felt was a de facto preliminary injunction, the case is by no means over regardless. Should the Trump administration wish to pursue its argument regarding the president's powers to impound Congressional funds, they can still argue it in district court, and appeal to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals and SCOTUS if they do not like the outcome. It remains to be seen whether SCOTUS, which only narrowly upheld the order 5-4 with no explanation, would similarly find for the plaintiffs on the merits of the case.
Still, the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold the lower court’s order is important. It could stymie the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from immediately halting certain federal funding.
Related Resources
- Can an Executive Order Shut Down the Department of Education? (FindLaw's Law and Daily Life)
- What is Federal Question Jurisdiction? (FindLaw's U.S. Constitution)
- The Legal Battles Over DOGE's Powers and Federal Spending (FindLaw's Federal Courts)
