Untangling the USAID Controversy: Can the Courts Rein in Foreign Aid Cuts?

The battle over USAID exposes a growing clash between presidential power, the rule of law, and America’s global responsibilities.

---

Written on March 15th, 2025

Analysis by Hailey Kjersten

The United States Agency for International Development has been the government’s lead agency for foreign aid since it was created by President John F. Kennedy in 1961 to unite several foreign assistance programs into one agency. Though the organization is under the policy guidance of the Secretary of State, it has been run independently of the executive branch for the last 60 years. USAID assists strategically important countries and countries in conflict. The agency also implements global programs for disaster relief, socioeconomic development, environmental protection, global health and democratic governance. Some examples of important USAID initiatives include war relief in Ukraine, HIV prevention in Uganda and the containment of outbreaks of Ebola and other hemorrhagic fevers in recent years, according to the Congressional Research Service.

USAID has come under scrutiny during the current presidential administration due to accusations of wasteful spending and fraud, many of which have been misleading or false. In fiscal year 2023, USAID spent around $21.7 billion (less than 1% of the federal spending), according to the Office of Management and Budget and the US Department of the Treasury. In an article for the New York Times, writer Noah Weiland argued this makes the organization a modest target for cost-cutting efforts by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. 

Since the Trump administration took power in January, many of the USAID staff have been cut, and much of USAID’s funding has been placed on hold, leading to a series of convoluted legal battles.

Timeline of Events

Based on a timeline provided by the Kaiser Family Foundation, on January 20th, President Trump issued an executive order halting funding for foreign aid programs pending a 90-day review. Over the next four weeks, thousands of USAID workers were placed on leave or fired, reducing the global USAID workforce from more than 10,000 employees to just under 300, according to a report published in the New York Times. Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a temporary waiver to allow ongoing life-saving humanitarian aid to continue, but USAID employees reported the aid remained halted due to the shutdown of the agency’s payment system.

Two U.S. District Court judges ordered the administration to halt layoffs and prevent the freezing of payments from before January 20th. Despite this, USAID employees reported the federal government was not abiding by the orders. In response, one of the judges ordered the federal government to pay nearly $2 billion in already-completed work to USAID by midnight the next day. The case then went to the Supreme Court, where Chief Justice John Roberts prevented the district court’s early deadline and rejected Trump’s request to freeze the $2 billion. The case was then sent back to a lower court to clarify the government’s obligations.

AVAC v. State Department and GHC v. Trump

Separately, on February 10th, two nonprofit organizations, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Global Health Council, sued Trump, the State Department, USAID, the Office of Management and Budget, Marco Rubio and Russell Vought, seeking emergency relief from the Executive Order that froze all funding for foreign assistance, according to Citizen. The cases were assigned to Judge Amir H. Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, who on March 10th granted a preliminary injunction in the AVAC and GHC cases. He required the government to reverse any terminations, suspensions and stop-work orders and to pay for any work completed before February 13th. In his 48-page ruling, Ali wrote that Congress had appropriated the foreign aid funds and the Trump administration did not have the right to “impound” the money. Ali also highlighted the limits of the case in his ruling, which prevented him from ordering payment for future work or restoring canceled contracts. The recent USAID terminations will remain effective as of early April 2025.

What does the future hold?

Trump wrote on X, “He who saves his Country does not violate any Law,” seemingly suggesting that even if his actions break valid laws, it would not matter because his motive is to save his country. The potential for the Trump Administration to disregard court orders related to USAID has raised serious concerns among legal experts about whether the administration will also ignore future court orders. In his ruling, Ali wrote, “The executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place.” The administration is facing over 100 active lawsuits challenging its actions, according to a New York Times article. Ultimately, it is the executive branch's responsibility to enforce judicial orders. However, there is concern that the Trump administration may continue to ignore the rulings.

According to USAID executives, the human cost of cuts to foreign aid is enormous. In a series of memos by the Acting Assistant Administrator for Global Health at USAID Nicholas Enrich, acquired by The New York Times, Enrich predicted a rapid decline in global health if the agency is defunded. He described 18 million additional cases of malaria each year, one million children untreated for acute malnutrition and tens of thousands of cases of Ebola and Marburg annually.

Additionally, according to Global Health Reporter for The New York Times, Apoorva Mandavilli, mass layoffs and cuts to foreign aid funding could set the stage for major disease outbreaks. While critics of foreign aid programs may believe agencies like USAID do not affect the United States, Mandavilli argues programs designed to detect and contain dangerous diseases have spillover effects benefiting the health of all countries. She reports that halting USAID global health programs leaves the rest of the world vulnerable to dangerous diseases.

There may be significant consequences of continuous executive disobedience of the courts. The cases associated with USAID are still developing and it remains to be seen whether the administration can find a loophole in Ali’s order allowing them to continue to avoid paying the $2 billion. The development of the legal battle over foreign aid may set the stage for an unprecedented confrontation between the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government.

---