The DC Circuit Court of Appeals handed the Trump administration another major victory on Wednesday after it lifted a district court’s preliminary injunction prohibiting the government from cutting foreign aid for fiscal year 2024.
The ruling comes after several entities, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Inc., and others,s filed a lawsuit challenging the White House’s cutting of foreign aid. Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson wrote the majority opinion holding that the plaintiffs did not have a valid legal basis for suing the administration over this matter.
Henderson explained that the plaintiffs could not base their case purely on constitutional “separation of powers” arguments when their complaints were centered on whether the Trump administration violated spending laws. She argued that they could not use the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because the Impoundment Control Act already mandates that only the Comptroller General can file a lawsuit under the legislation.
The D.C. Circuit just handed the Trump Administration another victory in tossing aside the injunction requiring the State Department to make foreign aid payments. It is only the latest district court to be overruled on these injunctions as invasive of Article II authority.
— Jonathan Turley (@JonathanTurley) August 13, 2025
Recommended
The conflict began when President Donald Trump signed an executive order on his first day in office, instructing the State Department and USAID to pause new foreign aid spending. The purpose was to give his administration a chance to review each foreign spending program to determine whether it should be cut.
US District Judge Amir Ali issued the injunction after ruling that the administration’s slashing of funding likely violated Congress’s spending rules under the 2024 Appropriations Act, the Impoundment Control Act, and the Anti-Deficiency Act. He claimed the president’s power to cut foreign aid was at its “lowest ebb” when he went against the legislature’s will.
However, Henderson rejected that argument, pointing out that the Supreme Court’s 1994 ruling in Dalton v. Specter mandates that plaintiffs can’t simply reframe a statutory dispute as a constitutional one to subvert legal limits on lawsuits.
The court further noted that while the spending freeze would harm certain aid groups, they were not likely to win the lawsuit in the end. To be clear, the court did not rule on whether Trump’s spending freeze is lawful or constitutional. It only decided that the policy shouldn’t be blocked while it is being litigated in court.
Republican lawmakers have also made efforts to cut foreign spending. In a 51-48 vote in July, the Senate approved a package that would eliminate about $8 billion in foreign aid while canceling $9 billion in previously approved funding. The plaintiffs have not yet indicated whether they will approve the ruling.
This legal battle will be one to watch closely amid the debate over foreign spending. The decision to do away with USAID rankled more than a few feathers among members of the chattering class — even after it was revealed that much of the spending was allocated for useless and ridiculous initiatives.
Editor’s Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use the promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership!
Join the conversation as a VIP Member