D.C. Circuit Court Upholds President Trump's USAID Cuts, Highlights Judicial Overreach
Henderson wrote, "They may not bring a freestanding constitutional claim if the underlying alleged violation and claimed authority are statutory." She affirmed the order's validity under "the President’s authority under ‘the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.’"
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled yesterday that President Trump lawfully withheld billions in USAID foreign aid, vacating a lower court's injunction and exposing activist judges' attempts to politically thwart his efforts to curb wasteful spending.
President Trump's January 20, 2025, executive order froze funds for a 90-day review to align with U.S. priorities, targeting nearly $4 billion in global health programs and over $6 billion for HIV/AIDS initiatives. This move aimed to end subsidies for questionable projects like overseas LGBT programs, Iraqi children's shows, and aid potentially benefiting bad foreign actors.
Grantees sued, claiming violations of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) and separation of powers. A district court granted a preliminary injunction, forcing spending and encroaching on executive authority. In a 2-1 decision, Judges Karen LeCraft Henderson and Gregory Katsas reversed this, holding grantees lack a cause of action. They ruled claims are statutory under the ICA, which limits lawsuits to the Comptroller General, not private parties like nonprofits.
Henderson wrote, "They may not bring a freestanding constitutional claim if the underlying alleged violation and claimed authority are statutory." She affirmed the order's validity under "the President’s authority under ‘the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America.’" The majority rejected ultra vires claims, finding no extreme statutory violation.
Dissenting Judge Florence Y. Pan argued the majority insulated presidential actions, but Henderson countered, "We simply hold that such claims must meet the standards governing review of ultra vires claims, and cannot be recast as constitutional claims through the mere invocation of the separation of powers."
This ruling underscores a pattern of lower courts issuing injunctions to block President Trump's agenda, often from judges appointed by prior administrations, prioritizing politics over law. It bolsters the Department of Government Efficiency's reforms and limits future judicial interference in executive spending decisions.
Like this article