Cases of food purchased for foreign aid are stacked in a non-profit group's warehouse in Pooler, Georgia, in July. Photo / Stephen B. Morton, for The Washington Post
The Trump Administration asked the Supreme Court today to allow it to freeze billions of dollars in United States foreign aid, potentially setting up the biggest test yet of the president’s bid to assert sweeping authority over federal spending.
The emergency filing in the rapidly moving case comes after a federal appeals court declined to block a preliminary injunction requiring Trump officials to spend the money for food, medicine and development assistance before it begins to expire at the end of the financial year on September 30.
Since beginning his second term in January, US President Donald Trump has claimed broad powers to refuse to spend congressionally allocated money for transportation projects, health research, education, “sanctuary cities”, and more, saying the spending was wasteful or not aligned with the Administration’s values.
One of his first acts, pausing about US$30 billion ($50b) in foreign aid through the State Department and US Agency for International Development, was followed by the dismantling of USAid.
Congressional Democrats estimate a total of US$430b in federal spending is now on hold.
Critics argue his moves violate the Constitution, which gives Congress the power of the purse.
Global health and other aid groups sued in March, saying Trump didn’t have the authority to freeze the foreign aid and the cuts would bring about a humanitarian disaster.
A recent study in the Lancet predicted up to 14 million additional deaths - including four million to five million children under the age of 5 - by 2030 as a result. More than 60,000 tonnes of food aid - some rotting - sits undelivered in warehouses. The Administration contends the aid cuts have not resulted in any deaths.
The legal battle over foreign aid has been long and complicated, bouncing to the Supreme Court and back over the last six months. In April, a sharply divided high court ruled a federal judge could order the Trump Administration to pay back about US$2b in aid for work already completed.
Last month, a panel of the federal appeals court in Washington DC struck down a federal judge’s preliminary injunction requiring the Trump Administration to spend billions in additional funds for future aid work, finding the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to sue.
The full appeals court amended that ruling and returned the case to US District Judge Amir Ali, leaving open the possibility the plaintiffs could renew a request for a preliminary injunction on different legal grounds.
The plaintiffs did that, and Ali granted a new preliminary injunction last Thursday, finding that the Trump Administration had violated the 2024 Appropriations Act by holding up the foreign aid.
“Defendants have given no justification to displace the bedrock expectation that Congress’ appropriations must be followed,” Ali wrote in his order.
The Trump Administration quickly sought a review, and the appeals court refused to lift that order in a divided opinion on Saturday NZT.
Ali has obligated the government to spend about US$10.5b that will expire at the end of next month.
The Trump Administration said in its court filings it plans to spend US$6.5b of those funds and it has made a request to Congress to rescind about US$4b. Trump officials want the Supreme Court to lift Ali’s order requiring the US$4b be allocated.
Solicitor-General John Sauer wrote in the government’s filing that to meet the September 30 deadline, the Administration would have to immediately start diplomatic discussions with other nations about the use of the funds, and “it is untenable for the Government to now try to scramble to comply”.
“The President can hardly speak with one voice in foreign affairs or in dealings with Congress when the district court is now forcing the Executive Branch to advocate against its own objectives,” Sauer wrote.
Lauren Bateman, a lawyer for Public Citizen Litigation Group, which is representing some of the plaintiffs, said in a statement the Trump Administration is attempting to usurp Congress’ constitutional authority to determine spending.
“The Administration is effectively asking the Supreme Court to bless its attempt to unlawfully accumulate power,” Bateman said.
Separately, the Trump Administration moved last week to carry out a “pocket rescission” on about US$5b in overseas assistance - essentially a play to run out the clock without spending the money until the end of the financial year.
Democrats and Republicans have criticised the move, and a federal judge put it on hold, finding it was illegal.
It’s unclear when the high court will decide whether to take the foreign aid case or how it might rule, but the justices have allowed Trump to temporarily block funding in some past cases.
Last month, a divided Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to cancel nearly US$800 million in National Institutes of Health grants for the study of diseases in minority, gay and transgender communities while legal battles over the funding play out in the lower courts.
In April, the high court allowed Trump officials to freeze up to US$65m in educational grants to address teacher shortages, which the Government says fund programmes that promote diversity, equity and inclusion.
Sign up to Herald Premium Editor’s Picks, delivered straight to your inbox every Friday. Editor-in-Chief Murray Kirkness picks the week’s best features, interviews and investigations. Sign up for Herald Premium here.