Does Trump really have to pay up this much?
A federal judge ruled on Monday that the Trump administration must pay outstanding foreign aid owed to contractors for work already completed. The judge’s decision highlights the Trump administration’s potential violation of the separation of powers by “illegally impounding” nearly $2 billion in funds approved by Congress.
U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali, appointed by President Biden, stated that the Trump administration likely overstepped its constitutional bounds in blocking payments owed by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Ali argued that the executive branch unilaterally decided not to spend the foreign aid funds allocated by Congress.
Judge Ali explained that the president’s actions went beyond what is allowed by the Constitution, claiming that the administration not only overreached its authority in deciding how to allocate appropriated funds, but also in preventing Congress from determining how those funds should be spent. “The executive is not authorized to block funds that Congress has directed to be used for foreign aid,” Ali stated.
While the court ruling specifically addresses funds owed for completed projects up until February 13, 2025, it does not extend to projects or contracts still in progress. As of last week, the total owed by the government stood at about $671 million. It remains unclear if further payments have been made, and the judge ordered the plaintiffs to submit a joint status report by March 14 to inform the court of the administration’s compliance.
Judge Ali also pointed out that the Trump administration’s January 2020 executive order and subsequent memo, which curtailed foreign aid funding and restructured contracts, likely exceeded the president’s constitutional authority. This decision came after the Supreme Court rejected the administration’s request to extend the freeze on payments, sending the case back to the federal court for further action.
The controversy over foreign aid funding underscores the constitutional responsibility of Congress to control how taxpayer dollars are spent. As the case progresses, it may reach the Supreme Court once again, potentially addressing the broader issue of executive overreach in the handling of funds appropriated by Congress.