Trump given green light to cut billions in foreign assistance by major U.S. court ruling

The Trump administration has achieved a major legal victory through a significant U.S. court ruling allowing them to cut billions in foreign assistance funds initially approved by Congress.

The flag of USAID, the largest overseer of foreign aid distribution in the United States executive branch.

On Wednesday August 13th, an appellate panel in a 2-1 decision reversed a previous ruling by a federal judge deeming it unconstitutional for officials in the Trump administration to authorize funds directed by the legislative branch, an offense of the Constitution's separation of powers.

The previous ruling was a lower court injunction that required the State Department to resume foreign aid payments despite what DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) and Trump officials have tried to cut. Trump officials have tried to repeal this initial ruling, leading to today's case.

The 2-1 vote came down to judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas, both of whom were Republican appointees. They ruled that foreign aid-receiving nonprofits lacked legal standing to maintain their previous injunction and that the court should not decide whether Trump's foreign aid freeze was constitutional. The only dissenter was Biden appointee Florence Pan, who warned that the decision would enable the executive branch to bypass constitutional checks and undermines the Constitution-based separation of powers essential for the homeostasis of the American system of government.

Yet, this is just a temporary ruling, and it is likely that courts across the nation will continue to take action either for or against the Trump's administration's use of executive power to influence foreign aid payments.

Foreign aid nonprofits like the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network have celebrated the previous ruling in their favor, and since then warned that a successful appeal could lead to catastrophic humanitarian consequences such as delays in HIV/AIDS programs and other life-saving services across the globe.

Some experts have cited a small but real chance that this case could be brought up to SCOTUS as many lower courts continue this battle.