A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to release foreign aid payments owed under certain existing contracts but stopped short of staving off mass contract cancellations that resulted from a subsequent review.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, an appointee of former President Biden, ruled that the administration must pay out U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) bills owed through Feb. 13 under existing contracts and grants. He also blocked the government from “unlawfully impounding” congressionally appropriated foreign aid.
However, Ali declined to invalidate the case-by-case review that USAID and the State Department said was completed by Feb. 26, which resulted in the cancellation of nearly 5,800 USAID awards and 4,100 awards from the State.
“The provision and administration of foreign aid has been a joint enterprise between our two political branches,” Ali wrote in a 48-page decision. “That partnership is built not out of convenience, but of constitutional necessity.”
“Today, this Court reaffirms these firmly established principles of our Constitution,” he said. “At the same time, however, the Court is mindful of limitations on its own authority.”
The Trump administration has made concerted efforts to dismantle USAID, including by firing employees and freezing its payments to contractors. The subsequent review left only some 500 awards intact from USAID.
USAID contractors sued the Trump administration last month, alleging they were waiting on hundreds of millions of dollars in outstanding invoices from the government. Two other nonprofits also sued, claiming Trump’s executive order freezing foreign aid violated the separation of powers and caused irreparable harm to their operations that heavily rely on USAID funding.
While the Justice Department said in court filings that an “individualized review process” was completed for grants and federal assistance award obligations, the plaintiffs contended that it would not be possible for a case-by-case review of all awards to have been completed so quickly, suggesting instead that the State Department’s actions ultimately still amounted to an unlawful blanket decision to stop all aid.
When Ali questioned the speed of the review, the government said that the request for a temporary restraining order resulted in a shift in resources to get the job done faster.
The plaintiffs have “a problem that is of their own litigation choices,” said DOJ lawyer Indraneel Sur during a hearing last week.
Stephen Wirth, a lawyer for the challengers, said during the hearing that the Trump administration’s foreign aid freeze has been “catastrophic.”
“Billions of dollars in life-saving humanitarian aid have, without warning, been shut off literally overnight,” he said.
Another lawyer for the challengers, William Perdue, argued that the administration is stepping on Congress’s power of the purse, as funds appropriated for specific purposes have not been used in that way. Furthermore, the government has “never claimed” they intend to “re-obligate” the funds, he said.
Ali also questioned the government’s position that presidential powers regarding foreign affairs are “vast and unreviewable.”
“Where are you getting this from the constitutional document?” he asked.
Sur said only that the courts have long abided a “deference” to the executive on the matter.
In his ruling Monday, Ali said the plaintiffs would likely prevail on their claim that the administration’s withholding of appropriated foreign aid violates the separation of powers.
Last week, a different federal judge declined to immediately block the mass firings of USAID personal services contractors. He said the harm they face is “directly traceable” to changes the government made to their contracts, suggesting relief should be sought through another avenue.
