Trump’s executive order freezing all foreign assistance funding is illegal

A federal judge imposed a temporary restraining order on the Trump administration’s executive order freezing all foreign assistance funding.

Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued the preliminary injunction Thursday, ordering a temporary end to the freeze on foreign assistance spending agreements that were in existence before Jan. 20 at the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.

Trump wants to close USAID as part of a larger effort to crack down on federal bureaucracy led by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency.

The temporary judicial relief followed a court hearing with a coalition of international development contractors and foreign aid nonprofits that had sued the Trump administration to stop enforcement of the freeze.

The plaintiffs, who include Chemonics International Inc. and the Global Health Council, challenged the legality of President Donald Trump’s Jan. 20 executive order imposing a 90-day pause on all foreign development assistance funding.

The judge found that in this “early stage” of the case, the plaintiffs had met the legal standard for showing they were likely to eventually succeed on the merits of their case, were likely to suffer irreparable harm if preliminary relief were not granted, and that an injunction was in the public interest.

Rather than “maximize governmental efficiency and productivity” DOGE is firing federal employees and closing down entire segments of the government that have been established by Congress, which has been acquiescent despite the illegal encroachment on its constitutional powers.

One plaintiff whose work supports HIV prevention research and the distribution of HIV prevention medications to high-risk communities in African countries attested that the funding freeze had disrupted clinical trials and the rollout of lifesaving disease interventions.

Another nonprofit plaintiff that provides refugee services reported that it had to lay off 535 staff members after multiple foreign aid grants were canceled.

The judge’s order noted that while some of the canceled contracts had clauses allowing for termination under certain circumstances, the administration acknowledged that it had pursued a “blanket” approach to all contracts rather than focusing on those contracts where cancelation was permitted.

The plaintiffs also argued that the waivers for specific programs issued by Secretary of State Marco Rubio have not “meaningfully mitigated” the harm caused by the funding freeze due in some cases to department officials being unable to “provide any information regarding the application of the waiver” or no funds being disbursed because “federal government payout portals are no longer functioning,” according to the court order.

One plaintiff reported receiving a waiver for only 30 days, too short a period in their case to restart halted global supply chains.

The January executive order said the funding pause would allow time for review and evaluations to ensure that foreign assistance programs are aligned with Trump’s foreign policy.

However, the court found that the Trump administration thus far has “not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shockwave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs.”

The plaintiffs argued that the executive branch was violating the Constitution’s separation of powers by withholding congressionally appropriated funds and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act by acting arbitrarily and capriciously.

The administration argued that the president’s executive order was not subject to judicial review, contradicting one of the foundations of U.S. constitutional law and threatening an important part of the American system of checks and balances.

While the president has broad power to issue executive orders, they cannot contradict the Constitution or federal statutes.

Since the early days of the republic, the federal judiciary has reviewed the constitutionality of legislation enacted by Congress.

The Supreme Court’s 1803 decision in Marbury v. Madison established the principle of judicial review, and later cases confirmed that federal courts possess the authority to review the actions of the executive branch.

The decision established the Constitution as the supreme law of the United States. It also established the principle of judicial review, which is a fundamental characteristic of American government.

The court order gives the administration until Feb. 18 to file a status report on their compliance with the order.