Federal Appeals Court Backs Trump’s Foreign Aid Freeze in Major Legal Victory

In a significant legal win for President Donald Trump’s administration, a federal appeals court on Wednesday overturned a lower court’s injunction that had forced the U.S. State Department to continue distributing billions in foreign aid. The ruling is expected to have sweeping implications for executive authority over U.S. foreign assistance programs.

The decision, handed down by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, supports the administration’s move to pause foreign aid spending shortly after Trump was inaugurated for a second term on January 20. The 2-1 ruling found that the plaintiffs in the case—two nonprofit organizations that receive federal funding—did not have legal standing to challenge the funding freeze.

The Fight Over Foreign Aid

On his first day back in office, President Trump signed an executive order imposing a 90-day suspension on all foreign aid payments. The directive initiated a comprehensive review of U.S. foreign assistance programs, and Trump subsequently took further action to downsize the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), placing much of its staff on administrative leave. Reports also surfaced that the administration was exploring plans to fold USAID into the State Department, effectively ending its independence.

Two nonprofit groups—AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network—filed suit in federal court, arguing that the aid freeze was illegal and undermined commitments already approved by Congress. They claimed the sudden cutoff of funds jeopardized humanitarian projects around the globe.

In a ruling earlier this year, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, sided with the plaintiffs and ordered the administration to resume the disbursement of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid.

But on appeal, that ruling was overturned.

Majority Opinion: Plaintiffs Lack Standing

Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Karen Henderson stated that the nonprofits did not have a valid legal claim to challenge the administration’s actions. She emphasized that only the Government Accountability Office (GAO)—Congress’s chief oversight body—has the authority to determine whether the president is improperly withholding appropriated funds.

“Plaintiffs lack a cause of action to press their claims,” Henderson wrote. “We therefore find that the injunction issued by the district court must be lifted.”

Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, was joined in the majority by Judge Gregory Katsas, who was nominated to the court by President Trump.

Importantly, the court did not rule on the broader constitutional issue of whether the executive branch violated the separation of powers by freezing funds already appropriated by Congress. The case was dismissed on procedural grounds, not on the merits of the constitutional arguments.

Dissenting Voice Warns of Executive Overreach

In a sharp dissent, Judge Florence Pan—appointed by President Biden—warned that the decision sets a dangerous precedent, potentially granting the executive branch unchecked power over spending.

“This ruling allows the executive to ignore binding federal law and defy congressional intent with impunity,” Pan wrote. “It risks upending the very system of checks and balances our democracy depends on.”

Pan expressed concern that future administrations could use similar tactics to block or redirect funding without legislative approval, threatening the integrity of the appropriations process.

White House Applauds Decision

The White House celebrated the ruling as a victory for fiscal responsibility and executive authority. A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) said the court’s decision prevents “radical left dark money groups” from using the courts to interfere with the administration’s foreign aid policy.

“This ruling confirms that President Trump has the legal authority to ensure foreign assistance aligns with America’s interests,” the spokesperson said. “Our goal is to eliminate waste and prioritize transparency and accountability.”

Environmental Policy Also Sees Shift

This week also brought another victory for the Trump administration on a separate front. The U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that narrowed the scope of environmental reviews for large infrastructure projects, a move that could significantly speed up construction timelines for highways, pipelines, and railways.

In an opinion written by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, the court concluded that federal environmental assessments should not act as a “roadblock” but rather a “procedural cross-check” for agencies making development decisions.

The case centered on an 88-mile rail line designed to transport crude oil from Utah’s Uinta Basin. The justices unanimously agreed that courts should defer to agency expertise as long as decisions fall within a reasonable range.

Even the court’s liberal justices—Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—agreed with the outcome, though they issued a concurring opinion arguing that agencies should still stay within their specific environmental jurisdictions.

Implications Going Forward

The dual victories signal the Trump administration’s ongoing efforts to consolidate executive control over both foreign aid and domestic regulatory policy. With continued legal backing, the White House is expected to pursue even more aggressive reforms across federal agencies, particularly in areas involving foreign policy, spending oversight, and environmental regulations.

While critics warn of constitutional overreach and a weakening of congressional authority, supporters argue that Trump is restoring discipline and accountability to bloated bureaucracies long overdue for reform.