The fight over foreign aid spending in Washington took a decisive turn this week after a federal appeals court upheld a ruling against former U.S. President Donald Trump’s attempt to block billions of dollars appropriated by Congress.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled Wednesday that the administration could not simply refuse to disburse money already authorized by lawmakers. Unless Congress changes the law, Ali wrote, the executive branch remains under a binding duty to follow appropriations statutes. His order, if it withstands the appeals process, would close off a path for presidents to bypass Congress by effectively canceling funding on their own.
The Trump White House had attempted to sidestep Congress by invoking a little-used tactic known as a “pocket rescission.” The maneuver, last deployed in 1977, would allow the president to withhold funds for 45 days after requesting Congress to rescind them — potentially running out the clock until the end of the fiscal year on September 30. Trump’s budget director, Russell Vought, argued the move was lawful.
At issue is roughly $4 billion in funding earmarked for the U.S. Agency for International Development, United Nations peacekeeping operations, and democracy-promotion efforts abroad. While pledging to spend $6.5 billion of foreign aid already appropriated for 2024, the administration moved to freeze the $4 billion in dispute.
Read also: Trump Moves To Rename Pentagon As Department Of War
Aid groups, some of which had already performed government-contracted work, sued over the freeze. They argued the sudden halt would jeopardize humanitarian programs and undercut America’s standing abroad. The Supreme Court, in an earlier intervention, had already forced the Trump administration to release some payments owed to these groups.
On Friday, the appeals court declined to pause Ali’s ruling, saying the administration had failed to meet the “stringent requirements” for such relief. The panel did not issue a full explanation, though Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented, saying he would have granted the stay.
The decision underscores Congress’s exclusive authority over the federal purse and narrows the scope of executive maneuvering on budget matters. For U.S. allies and aid recipients, it clears the way for long-delayed funds to flow — while cementing a precedent that future presidents may find hard to ignore.