The Trump administration has escalated its battle over foreign aid by requesting an emergency order from the Supreme Court to maintain a freeze on nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved funding.
This case centers on President Donald Trump’s controversial decision last month to withhold this significant aid, invoking questionable authority last used by a sitting president approximately 50 years ago.
In a ruling last week, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali declared the administration’s actions to be likely illegal, challenging the President’s power to unilaterally decide not to spend these appropriated funds.
On August 28, Trump notified House Speaker Mike Johnson that he would not distribute the $4.9 billion in foreign aid, effectively circumventing Congress, a move critics argue is a breach of established legislative procedures.
Utilizing what is known as a pocket rescission, Trump submitted a request to Congress near the end of the current budget year, thereby preventing lawmakers from acting within the required 45-day window before the funds would remain unspent.
Judge Ali emphasized that it is Congress, not the President, that must approve any rescission proposal to withhold funds.
The law, he noted, is clear that congressional action is needed to trigger such changes, thereby highlighting significant tension between the executive and legislative branches regarding budget control.
The administration’s policy of significantly slashing foreign aid has drawn criticism for potentially harming America’s global image and jeopardizing vital support for food and development programs in various countries.
After a federal appellate court panel declined to block his decision, the Trump administration appealed to the high court, highlighting the urgency of their request.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, characterized Judge Ali’s ruling as an “unlawful injunction” that creates unnecessary interbranch conflict.
He urged the Supreme Court justices to intervene and block the lower court’s ruling,
In stark contrast, attorneys representing nonprofit organizations that brought forth the lawsuit argue it is the funding freeze itself that violates federal law.
They point out that the withheld funds are crucial for even the most urgent and life-saving programs abroad, further complicating the humanitarian crisis.
Lauren Bateman, lead counsel for the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition plaintiffs, expressed strong condemnation of the administration’s maneuver, emphasizing that this is not the first time the administration has sought relief from the Supreme Court due to its own actions.
Bateman described the administration’s tactics as an effort to unlawfully accumulate power, illustrating a recurring theme in the ongoing legal battle.
Justice Department officials have indicated uncertainty surrounding the status of another $6.5 billion in aid previously frozen, suggesting that spending would occur before the end of the fiscal year on September 30.
The case has been a lengthy legal journey, with Judge Ali acknowledging that his ruling is unlikely to be the final word.
He recognized the profound legal and practical implications of the case, particularly regarding the executive branch’s decisions on spending congressionally appropriated funds.
In August, the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals dismissed a prior injunction that would have compelled spending of the frozen funds but stopped short of dismissing the lawsuit entirely.
Following Trump’s rescission notice, the plaintiffs returned to Ali’s courtroom, prompting the judge’s latest order now under challenge.
As the legal proceedings unfold, the implications of the case extend beyond immediate funding and raise critical questions about the balance of power between branches of government.
image source from：pbs
