March 11, 2025, 11:42 am CDT
Federal Judge Rules Suspension of Foreign Aid Likely Unconstitutional
A federal judge deemed the Trump administration’s abrupt halt to foreign aid likely unconstitutional, implicating the Administrative Procedure Act. (Image from Shutterstock)
A significant ruling from U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali has concluded that the Trump administration’s unexpected suspension of foreign aid, appropriated by Congress, is likely arbitrary and potentially unconstitutional. This decision is rooted in the perceived violations of the Administrative Procedure Act and principles of separation of powers as outlined in the U.S. Constitution.
The judge ordered the government to compensate grant recipients and contractors for services completed prior to February 13, 2025, which is when he issued a temporary restraining order regarding the case involving the American Bar Association (ABA) among others.
However, while emphasizing the necessity of spending congressional appropriations, Judge Ali refrained from reinstating the numerous foreign assistance contracts that had been terminated. He expressed concern over the court becoming overly entangled in executive decisions, stating he could not provide relief outside the claims specified in the lawsuits.
In a communication from March 10, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio disclosed that the administration would be canceling 83% of foreign-aid programs managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This change follows a review process lasting six weeks and includes 5,200 canceled contracts.
The government contended that the cancellations were necessary to ensure alignment with U.S. foreign policy objectives. Despite this, Judge Ali remarked that funds designated by Congress for foreign aid must be utilized, although the executive branch retains the discretion to determine the specifics of those expenditures within the confines of legislative constraints.
“The provision and administration of foreign aid has been a joint endeavor between our two political branches,” Judge Ali noted, underlining the constitutional imperative to balance the roles of the legislative and executive branches in this area.
The ABA, as stated in its lawsuit, reported that “tens of millions of dollars” designated for programs aimed at promoting rule of law and human rights were currently stalled due to this freeze on foreign aid.
The ruling has gained attention across various major news outlets, including The Washington Post, The New York Times, and Reuters, highlighting its implications on ongoing legal matters. A prior ruling from the Supreme Court, which declined to intervene and vacate Judge Ali’s compliance deadlines, supported the necessity for clarity regarding the government’s obligations as the court considers requests for a preliminary injunction related to these issues.
Justice Samuel Alito expressed dissent during the Supreme Court’s ruling on March 5, suggesting that the government’s sovereign immunity could shield it from being compelled by private entities to initiate payments—arguments that Ali acknowledged in his decision.
In conclusion, defendants in this litigation include officials from the USAID and the U.S. Department of State. The ongoing cases consist of Trump v. Global Health Council and U.S. Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. Laura Bateman, representing the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, articulated the decision’s affirmation of a critical constitutional principle: “The president is not a king.” She further acknowledged the dire humanitarian ramifications resulting from the suspension of foreign assistance, despite the constitutional victory.
