.jpeg)
By:
National Affairs Desk | Washington, D.C.
In a landmark decision that could reshape the
balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, a federal judge ruled on
Monday that former President Donald
Trump’s 2019 freeze on foreign aid violated the U.S. Constitution,
specifically the separation of powers clause. The court further ordered the
federal government to resume
and fulfill delayed payments to affected foreign aid programs.
The ruling, delivered by Judge Eleanor Martinez of
the U.S. District Court for
the District of Columbia, determined that the Trump
administration acted beyond
its legal authority when it withheld nearly $400 million in congressionally approved
foreign aid to Ukraine and other countries without
Congressional consent.
The decision is being hailed as a major victory for Congressional oversight and a rebuke to what legal scholars describe as an increasing trend of executive overreach in foreign policy and budgetary decisions.
Background: The Freeze That Sparked a Firestorm
In July 2019, President Trump ordered a hold
on military and development assistance to Ukraine, just days before
his controversial phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The
delay in aid—amounting to $391 million—was seen by many as a pressure tactic to
push Ukraine into investigating Trump’s political rivals, including
then-presidential candidate Joe
Biden and his son Hunter
Biden.
Though the aid was eventually released in
September 2019, the delay became a central
element in Trump’s first impeachment trial, where he was
charged with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The Senate acquitted
him in early 2020.
At the time, Trump officials justified the freeze by citing a need to “review” the foreign aid packages and ensure that funds aligned with U.S. foreign policy objectives. Critics, however, argued the White House was attempting to circumvent Congress’s constitutional power of the purse.
Read too Israel wins the war
The Ruling: “Violation of Core Constitutional
Principles”
In her 62-page ruling, Judge Martinez
emphasized that Congress has exclusive
authority over federal spending under the Constitution’s
Appropriations Clause.
“The Executive cannot unilaterally substitute
its own policy preferences in place of Congress’s duly enacted appropriations,”
she wrote. “Doing so upends the constitutional structure and violates the
foundational principle of separation of powers.”
She added that the President’s action, even if
temporary, disrupted legally
binding financial commitments, weakened America’s credibility
abroad, and risked damaging diplomatic relations with key allies.
Notably, Martinez dismissed arguments from Trump’s legal team that the pause was a legitimate use of executive discretion. She wrote that while the President does have some authority in executing foreign policy, that power “does not extend to nullifying or delaying laws enacted by Congress, including spending directives.”
Impact: Payments Ordered to Resume
The ruling includes a court order directing the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) and the Department of State to expedite and fulfill any
outstanding payments that were delayed under the 2019 freeze, specifically
those to U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) partners and
Department of Defense aid contractors.
Though most of the aid funds have already been
disbursed, the court instructed relevant agencies to conduct a full audit of impacted
programs and compensate for “any verifiable losses or delays incurred as a
result of the unlawful hold.”
Legal analysts note this clause could open the door to litigation by affected foreign contractors and nonprofit aid organizations that suffered financial setbacks due to the pause.
Reactions Across Washington
Reactions to the ruling were swift and sharply
divided.
Speaker
of the House Nancy Pelosi, who initiated the impeachment
inquiry in 2019, said the decision validated the House’s concerns at the time.
“Today’s ruling confirms what we said all
along: the President is not a king. He cannot defy the Constitution, even when
he finds Congress’s decisions inconvenient,” Pelosi said in a written
statement.
Senator
Chuck Schumer (D-NY) called it a "crucial reminder"
that no branch of government can operate without accountability.
By contrast, Trump allies condemned
the ruling as “judicial activism.”
Senator
Josh Hawley (R-MO) accused the court of "overstepping its
bounds to relitigate a political dispute already resolved in the impeachment
process."
Trump
spokesperson Steven Cheung called the ruling “yet another
partisan stunt by activist judges,” and vowed that Trump’s legal team would
appeal.
“President Trump acted well within his authority to ensure taxpayer dollars were used wisely. This ruling undermines presidential discretion in foreign affairs,” Cheung said.
Read too Israel wins the war
Legal and Constitutional Implications
The ruling is likely to carry far-reaching
implications for how future presidents interpret their authority over foreign
aid and appropriations.
According to Professor Lisa Graves, a
constitutional law expert at Georgetown University, the court’s decision
represents a “firm reaffirmation” of
Congressional power.
“Congress controls the purse strings.
Presidents can’t simply ignore or delay appropriated funds without explicit
statutory authority,” Graves said. “This decision could limit executive branch
‘pauses’ in funding, even when framed as policy reviews.”
The judgment also raises potential implications for emergency powers, such as those invoked to redirect military funds for border wall construction—another area where Trump clashed with Congress.
The Origins of the Lawsuit
The case, Congressional Oversight Committee v.
Office of Management and Budget, was originally filed in 2020
by a coalition of House Democrats and several oversight organizations. The
lawsuit argued that OMB’s action, under Trump’s direction, violated both
statutory law (such as the Impoundment Control Act) and constitutional
principles.
Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,
the executive branch must obligate
funds as appropriated by Congress, unless Congress itself
rescinds them or grants special authority to delay.
In January 2020, the nonpartisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report stating that the Trump administration had violated this law. Monday’s ruling by Judge Martinez effectively elevates that opinion to the status of a federal court order.
Could This Affect Future Administrations?
Though the decision is rooted in a past
administration’s action, legal scholars warn it sends a clear signal to future presidents,
including President Joe Biden and
his successors.
“This ruling will constrain presidents of both
parties from engaging in similar tactics,” said David Cole, National
Legal Director of the ACLU. “No president should have the unchecked power to
override spending decisions made by elected representatives.”
The Biden administration has thus far complied with court orders related to Trump-era spending, but legal experts suggest the White House may now be more cautious about using temporary holds or administrative reviews on funding already passed by Congress.
International Response
Though the primary fallout is domestic,
foreign officials have also taken notice. The Ukrainian Embassy in Washington
issued a short statement thanking the U.S. judiciary for “upholding the rule of
law and the integrity of American institutions.”
International aid organizations, including Oxfam America and CARE International,
praised the ruling as a move that “restores trust and stability” in U.S.
foreign assistance.
“We rely on the predictability of U.S. aid flows to deliver lifesaving services,” said Beth Mueller, Global Policy Director at CARE. “Interruptions—even brief ones—can have devastating consequences in conflict zones.”
What’s Next: Appeal Likely
Attorneys for former President Trump are
expected to appeal the ruling to the D.C.
Circuit Court of Appeals, potentially setting up a long legal
battle that could eventually reach the U.S.
Supreme Court.
Legal observers believe the core issues at
stake—separation of powers,
executive discretion, and budgetary authority—could serve as a
test case for broader questions about the limits of presidential control over
federal funds.
Until then, the court order stands, and the Department of Justice under President Biden has indicated it will not contest the ruling.
Conclusion
The ruling that Trump’s foreign aid freeze was
unconstitutional marks a significant moment in American legal
and political history. It reasserts the primacy of Congressional authority over
spending, restricts the executive branch’s ability to delay or defy
appropriations, and underscores the enduring importance of constitutional
checks and balances.
As political battles over foreign aid, national security, and executive power continue, this decision may serve as a landmark precedent, shaping how future administrations operate and how courts respond when those boundaries are tested.
Read too Israel wins the war