By Bunmi Yekini
A federal judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to restore funding for hundreds of foreign aid contractors affected by President Donald Trump’s abrupt 90-day freeze on foreign assistance, calling the move “arbitrary and capricious.”
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, an appointee of President Joe Biden, ruled that the administration had failed to consider the extensive harm caused by its blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated aid.
“At least to date, Defendants have not offered any explanation for why a blanket suspension of all congressionally appropriated foreign aid, which set off a shock wave and upended reliance interests for thousands of agreements with businesses, nonprofits, and organizations around the country, was a rational precursor to reviewing programs,” Ali wrote in his decision.
The ruling bars Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought from implementing contract cancellations or stop-work orders issued after Trump’s inauguration, at least while the case proceeds in court. The decision effectively halts a key component of Trump’s executive order to freeze foreign aid for 90 days.
Read Also:WHO and St. Jude Begin Distribution of Childhood Cancer Medicines in Pilot Countries
Lawyers representing the affected contractors emphasized the widespread damage caused by the freeze.
“Businesses are shuttering, terminating employees … food is rotting, medication is expiring,” said attorney Stephen Wirth during a 90-minute hearing held via conference call on Wednesday.
Another attorney representing foreign aid groups stressed the economic and political ramifications of the decision.
“Shutting down billions of dollars in government spending, sending numerous foreign aid partners large and small into oblivion, shutting them down so they are out of business, is clearly of sufficient political, social, and economic significance that it would require clear congressional authorization,” the attorney argued.
Judge Ali sided with the plaintiffs, stating that the damage being inflicted and the administration’s failure to justify the freeze warranted immediate injunctive relief.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department defended the administration’s actions, arguing that it was beyond judicial review since the freeze was enacted under Trump’s executive authority.
“We don’t have agency action because the agency is implementing an executive order,” DOJ attorney Eric Hamilton contended. “It is an enormously disruptive suggestion … to have this intrusion into USAID, which would place USAID into receivership with a federal court.”
Ali dismissed that argument, warning that the administration’s stance could render vast areas of government action immune to judicial oversight.
“Defendants’ argument, at least as it has been articulated to date, proves too much — it would allow the President and agencies to simply reframe agency action as orders or directives originating from the President to avoid [judicial] review,” Ali wrote.
This ruling marks the second legal blow to Trump’s effort to defund USAID, which administers billions in foreign aid. Last week, U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, blocked the administration from placing thousands of aid workers on administrative leave and cutting their access to government systems.
Ali’s order also adds to a growing list of judicial rebukes against Trump’s broader attempts to unilaterally freeze government spending. Judges in Rhode Island and Washington, D.C., have already issued rulings blocking elements of his domestic spending freeze.
The case is expected to continue, with further legal battles anticipated over the scope of executive power in foreign aid allocations.