A federal judge on Monday ordered the Trump administration to announce payments for foreign aid under certain existing contracts, but stopped removing cancellations of mass contracts due to subsequent reviews.
US District Judge Amir Ali, appointing former President Biden, has determined that the International Development Organization (USAID) bill must be paid by February 13th based on existing contracts and grants. He also prevented the government from “illegally attacking” foreign aid assigned to parliament.
However, Ali refused to disable the case-by-case reviews that USAID and the State Department said were completed by February 26, resulting in the cancellation of nearly 5,800 USAID awards and 4,100 awards from the State Department.
“The provisions and management of foreign aid were joint ventures between our two political sectors,” Ali wrote in the 48-page decision. “That partnership is built not from convenience, but from constitutional needs.”
“Today, this court is reaffirming these firmly established principles of our constitution,” he said. “But at the same time, the court is noting restrictions on its own power.”
The Trump administration worked together to dismantle USAID, including firing employees and freeing up payments to contractors. In subsequent reviews, only 500 awards from USAID remained intact.
The USAID contractor sued the Trump administration last month, claiming it had been waiting for hundreds of millions of dollars on unpaid bills from the government. Two other nonprofits also sued, claiming that Trump's executive order freezing foreign aid violated a separation of power and caused irreparable harm to businesses that rely heavily on USAID funds.
In its court application, the Department of Justice stated that the “individualized review process” was completed due to grant and federal aid award obligations, but the plaintiffs argued that case-by-case review of all awards was not possible to complete very quickly, suggesting that instead the Department's actions amounted to an illegal blanket decision that would ultimately cease all aid.
When Ali questioned the speed of the review, the government said the demand for a temporary restraining order would result in a change in resources to get the job done faster.
The plaintiffs “have issues with their own litigation options,” said Indraine Schul, a lawyer for the Department of Justice.
Challenger's lawyer Stephen Worth said during the hearing that the Trump administration's freeze on foreign aid was “devastating.”
“The billions of life-saving humanitarian aid have been literally stopped overnight without warning,” he said.
Another counsel for the challenger, William Purdue, argued that the administration is stepping into the power of Congress's wallets because funds allocated for specific purposes are not used in that way. He said the government has also “never claimed” that it intends to “remolate” the funds.
Ali also questioned the government's position that the president's power over diplomacy is “spread and unrepeated.”
“Where do you get this from the constitutional documents?” he asked.
Sur only said the court has long maintained “respect” to the enforcers on the matter.
Ali said in his ruling Monday that plaintiffs would outperform their claim that withholding appropriate foreign aid violates separation of power.
Last week, another federal judge refused to immediately block a mass shooting from a USAID Personal Services contractor. He said the harm they face suggests that the government should be “directly traceable” to change their contracts and seek relief through a different path.
