President Trump just scored a major win in the courts over foreign aid, and it’s a slap in the face to the progressive crowd who thought they could force his hand.
The Hill reported that in a 2-1 ruling on Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit lifted a prior order that had compelled the Trump administration to release billions in foreign aid, overturning a lower court’s decision from March.
This saga kicked off on Trump’s first day in office when he directed the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) to freeze foreign assistance payments.
That bold move sparked a firestorm of litigation, climbing all the way to the Supreme Court at an earlier stage. It’s classic Trump—shaking up the status quo while the establishment clutches its pearls.
Fast forward to March, when U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden nominee, ordered the administration to disburse the funds Congress had appropriated for fiscal year 2024.
That ruling also mandated USAID to settle bills owed through mid-February under existing contracts, though court records now show most of those payments are complete. Still, it was a temporary win for the aid advocates—until the appeals court stepped in.
Two groups of grant recipients sued, claiming the aid cuts violated the separation of powers since Congress had already allocated the money. Their argument? The executive branch can’t just ignore legislative will without consequences.
The appeals court, however, wasn’t buying it, ruling 2-1 that these recipients lacked a valid cause to challenge the cuts on constitutional grounds.
Judges Karen Henderson, appointed by George H.W. Bush, and Gregory Katsas, a Trump pick, formed the majority, pointing out that the issue was statutory, not a grand constitutional crisis. It’s a refreshing dose of judicial restraint in an era where every disagreement gets spun into a catastrophe.
Speaking for the majority, Judge Henderson wrote, “The grantees lack a cause of action.” That’s a polite way of saying, “Take your complaints elsewhere—this isn’t the right fight.” And frankly, it’s a reminder that not every policy dispute needs to be a courtroom drama.
The majority also noted that federal law still permits the Comptroller General to step in and sue if needed. So, the door isn’t entirely slammed shut on accountability—just redirected. It’s a pragmatic stance, even if it frustrates the left’s narrative of executive overreach.
Dissenting, Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, called the majority’s view “as startling as it is erroneous.” That’s a spicy take, but it dodges the core issue: Should every policy spat be elevated to a constitutional showdown? Her dissent seems more about signaling virtue than grounding in legal reality.
Judge Pan also argued the ruling ignores “basic separation of powers principles.” Fair point to raise, but let’s be real—Congress isn’t helpless here, and neither are other oversight mechanisms. Her rhetoric feels like a stretch to paint Trump as a rogue actor when this is more about a bureaucratic tug-of-war.
Pan further criticized her colleagues for excusing “the government’s forfeiture” of key arguments, suggesting a breach of judicial impartiality. That’s a heavy accusation, but it risks sounding like sour grapes when the majority’s logic holds up under scrutiny.
Lauren Bateman, an attorney at Public Citizen, didn’t hold back, calling the decision a “significant setback for the rule of law.” Strong words, but they gloss over the court’s clear reasoning that this isn’t the right venue for the fight. The hyperbole here smells of activist talking points, not legal analysis.
Bateman also warned that “countless people will suffer” due to withheld aid. It’s a heartbreaking angle, no question, and the human cost of policy decisions deserves serious thought—but let’s not pretend foreign aid is always the unalloyed good the left claims it to be.
Waste, mismanagement, and misplaced priorities often plague these programs, and Trump’s pause could force a much-needed reckoning.
Finally, Bateman vowed to seek further review and continue the lawsuit for “permanent relief” from the aid cuts. That tenacity is admirable, even if misguided, as it keeps the conversation alive on how taxpayer dollars are spent overseas. But don’t hold your breath for a reversal when the appeals court has already drawn a firm line.