An appellate court has sided with President Trump in the battle over funding for foreign aid. On Wednesday, the court issued a ruling overturning an injunction by a lower court that prevented the Trump administration from freezing payments.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found in a 2-1 ruling that the lower court had erred in its decision to order the Trump administration to continue foreign aid payments. The ruling by the Court of Appeals allows President Trump to continue using executive authority in making determinations related to foreign aid.
The case arose from an executive order signed by President Trump on January 20, 2025, which instituted a 90-day pause on foreign development assistance. The order highlighted serious concerns with the nature of foreign aid expenditures, and described much of the foreign aid spending by the federal government as inconsistent with American interests and “in many cases antithetical to American values.”
The expressed intent of the executive order was to allow time for foreign aid spending to be appropriately evaluated for efficiency and consistency with the foreign policy of the United States. The order directed that each foreign aid program should be reviewed by the responsible department, and further decisions could be made on whether funding should continue in consultation with the Secretary of State.
The district court granted a preliminary injunction requiring the Trump administration to continue access to the funds, which had been appropriated by Congress for fiscal year 2024.
In siding with the Trump administration, the appellate court found that the aid grantees who had initiated legal action lacked standing to bring suit. The court found the grantees were precluded from bringing constitutional claims when the case essentially revolved around a statutory issue. The court also rejected the argument that Trump’s actions exceeded executive authority and pointed out that proper statutory channels existed through which a challenge to aid expenditures could be brought.
The court ultimately held that the claim of the grantees had not met the burden required for a preliminary injunction, and the case should be remanded to the lower court for further proceedings.
