A recent ruling by a US district judge has reignited debate over executive power, as the Trump administration’s decision to withhold nearly $2 billion in foreign aid was deemed likely unconstitutional.
The ruling, which critics argue undermines presidential authority, comes as President Donald Trump continues his efforts to reshape US foreign aid spending to better align with national interests.
On Monday, US District Judge Amir H. Ali ruled that the Trump administration must release the frozen foreign assistance funds, arguing that the executive branch cannot unilaterally withhold money already approved by Congress. However, Ali also allowed the administration to move forward with its broader effort to reassess and potentially cancel future foreign aid contracts—an approach Trump has long advocated as part of his “America First” agenda.
Ali’s ruling has been hailed by critics of the administration as a check on presidential power, but it also raises important constitutional questions. The court’s decision suggests that while Trump’s efforts to reevaluate foreign aid spending may be legal, his ability to pause or redirect existing funds could face judicial hurdles.
Since taking office, President Trump has made it clear that he views foreign aid as a tool that should serve US interests more directly. The administration has sought to cut billions in overseas spending, arguing that much of it is wasted on ineffective programs or benefits foreign governments more than the American taxpayer.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration’s review process, stating that after a six-week analysis, 83% of USAID programs—amounting to 5,200 contracts—were found to be inefficient or even harmful to US interests. The administration’s decision to cancel these programs has been met with resistance from foreign aid groups, but supporters argue that it represents a necessary shift toward greater accountability in government spending.
The Supreme Court recently weighed in on the dispute, declining to block Ali’s ruling but revealing sharp divisions among the justices. In a strongly worded dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, criticized the lower court’s ruling as an overreach, arguing that a single district judge should not have the power to compel the US government to distribute taxpayer dollars without the president’s consent.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) $2 billion in taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,'” Alito wrote.
Supporters of Trump’s position argue that the ruling sets a dangerous precedent, undermining the president’s ability to oversee government spending. Critics, however, contend that Trump’s approach disregards the constitutional authority of Congress to allocate funds.
Despite the court ruling, the Trump administration remains committed to reassessing US foreign aid programs. With thousands of contracts already canceled and ongoing legal battles over executive authority, the fight over control of foreign aid spending is far from over.
The Washington Post and the Associated Press contributed to this report.
