Appeals court rules against Trump’s effort to cut nearly $5M in foreign aid

A federal appeals court on Friday ruled against President Trump’s effort to cut billions of dollars of foreign aid that was previously approved by Congress through “pocket rescissions.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision, refused to block a lower court ruling from earlier this week that said the administration must release the preapproved funding and ruled the effort to withhold it was likely illegal. 

The three-judge panel did not elaborate on their ruling, writing that “appellants have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal.” 

Justices Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan — appointed by former Presidents Obama and Biden, respectively — supported the lower court decision, while Judge Justin Walker, an appointee of Trump, dissented.

The ruling came two days after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali that condemned the administration’s unwillingness to spend the funds appropriated by law. 

“Defendants’ reasons for not developing an argument here over the numerous months and opportunities given may be many, including that, even having changed their position, there is not a plausible interpretation of the statutes that would justify the billions of dollars they plan to withhold,” Ali said Wednesday in his 43-page ruling.

He added, “Whatever the reason, Defendants have given no justification to displace the bedrock expectation that Congress’s appropriations must be followed and that absent a ‘claim of unconstitutionality that has not been rejected by final Court order, the Executive must abide by statutory mandates.'”

In late August, Trump notified Congress of his intention to claw back $4.9 billion in funding allocated to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) utilizing a rare “pocket rescission.” 

The effort to rescind the funding was met with opposition from Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who called it an “attempt to undermine the law.”