Trump orders USAID to be put under the U.S. Department of State (DOS) amidst foreign aid freeze
- Thread starter FAH1223
- Start date
ADevilYouKhow
Rhyme Reason
Trump and Musk Bring Vast Aid Machinery to a Halt in Africa
The collapse of U.S.A.I.D. at the hands of President Trump and Elon Musk is already leaving gaping holes in vital health care and other services that millions of Africans rely on for their survival.
I see why you guys were seal clapping now
Outlaw
New Hope For the HaveNotz
It would be up to state agencies at that point right?
I asked AI on the likelihood of interim measures analyzing the lawsuit
Based on the complaint and recent precedent, the prospects for non-profits obtaining relief from the foreign aid freeze appear strong. The plaintiffs present compelling evidence of both constitutional and statutory violations, with particularly persuasive arguments regarding separation of powers and the Impoundment Control Act. The lawsuit benefits from clear standing, as organizations like AVAC and JDN (and others) can demonstrate concrete injuries through staff layoffs, program suspensions, and disrupted services. The humanitarian consequences and national security implications also strengthen the case for emergency relief.
Previous related cases offer encouraging signs. Courts have already shown skepticism toward similar Trump administration actions, as evidenced by the quick injunctions issued in both the National Council of Nonprofits case and the Rhode Island case challenging the OMB memorandum. The arbitrary nature of the stop-work orders, combined with the lack of proper procedures and contradictory implementation, provides strong grounds for relief under the Administrative Procedure Act. The fact that Congress explicitly appropriated these funds and the administration failed to follow the required procedures for withholding them makes this a particularly clear case of executive overreach.
The speed at which courts have acted in similar cases suggests non-profits may see relief relatively quickly, potentially within days or weeks rather than months. However, organizations should prepare for both scenarios - quick relief through a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, and a longer battle for permanent resolution. The strength of the legal arguments, combined with the clear humanitarian stakes and national security implications, makes it likely that courts will act to restore funding, at least temporarily while the full case proceeds. Organizations should maintain detailed records of all stop-work orders, costs incurred, and program impacts to support both immediate relief requests and longer-term litigation efforts.
Perhaps most importantly, the courts have historically been very protective of Congress's power of the purse and skeptical of executive attempts to unilaterally withhold appropriated funds. Even if some claims face challenges, the plaintiffs only need to succeed on one theory to obtain relief. The combination of strong legal arguments, clear injuries, and precedent suggesting courts will act quickly to prevent humanitarian harm makes the prospects for obtaining relief quite favorable for affected non-profits. However, organizations should prepare for potential resistance or delayed compliance from the administration, even after court orders are issued.
And about the Supreme Court
This case appears destined for the Supreme Court given its fundamental constitutional questions about separation of powers and executive authority over appropriated funds. The case presents exactly the kind of high-stakes constitutional dispute the Court typically reviews - it involves core questions about the balance of power between Congress and the Executive, has significant national security implications, and affects billions in federal spending. The likelihood of circuit splits as similar cases proceed through different courts would also strongly favor Supreme Court review.
Despite the Court's 6-3 conservative majority, there are compelling reasons to believe it would likely rule against Trump, possibly by a 7-2 or even 8-1 margin. Chief Justice Roberts has consistently shown concern for institutional stability and congressional authority, particularly regarding the power of the purse. Justices Barrett and Gorsuch, though conservative, have demonstrated strong commitments to textualist interpretation and skepticism of expansive executive power. The clear statutory language of the Impoundment Control Act and appropriations laws gives these textualist justices a straightforward path to rule against executive overreach without appearing political.
The conservative majority has shown willingness to check executive power even when sympathetic to policy goals, as demonstrated in cases like NFIB v. OSHA. This case presents an even clearer example of executive overreach, with the administration openly defying explicit statutory schemes and congressional appropriations. The humanitarian consequences and disruption to U.S. foreign policy interests would likely further persuade moderate conservatives like Roberts and Barrett. Only Justices Thomas and Alito might reliably support expansive executive authority here.
Several recent Supreme Court decisions suggest this conservative Court would actually be quite receptive to the plaintiffs' arguments. The Court's conservatives have emphasized both textualist statutory interpretation and originalist constitutional understanding - both of which strongly support Congress's power of the purse over executive spending discretion. The Founders explicitly placed the spending power with Congress, and the relevant statutes clearly limit executive impoundment authority. Even if individual justices might agree with the policy of reviewing foreign aid, they're likely to object to the executive branch unilaterally defying clear congressional directives. The fact that the administration bypassed explicit statutory procedures for requesting funding changes would particularly trouble the Court's institutionalist conservatives.
The key swing vote would likely be Justice Kavanaugh, but given his previous writings on separation of powers and the clear statutory violations here, he would probably join a majority ruling against Trump. The administration's best argument would be executive authority over foreign affairs, but even that seems unlikely to persuade a Court majority given the direct conflict with Congress's constitutional spending power and clear statutory directives. In short, while the Court's conservative majority often favors executive power, this case presents such a clear violation of congressional authority and statutory requirements that even this conservative Court would likely rule decisively against Trump's actions.
My Muslim brother coming through. Thanks Joe Biden.
Good summary from Devex
Most of my programs have funds... so if State complies, we can get back up to things relatively quickly..
I know of the Food for Peace program. I thought it was already in USDA not USAID.
Some sick shyt smh. But the good thing is they laid out their playbook publicly. Basically they are doing a full court press on government employees to demoralize them so much, they willingly retire.
TRO Update from Rob Nichols...
...and how the government is being turned into a MAGA piggy bank.
scaan.substack.com
Rob Nichols of NicholsLiu understands what is happening to USAID better than anyone else I’ve heard speak out in public.
He was on a call hosted by Devex just now. Here’s my quick interpretation of a few of the main points (he was much more judicious and lawyerly):
- The message from the administration to the international development community is this:
- In other words: you’re not getting paid. Let me say that again. YOU ARE NOT GOING TO GET PAID. The Administration sees you and everything you do as criminal and illegal, and there is no reason that they should give you anything.
- It doesn’t matter what the courts say. The Administration doesn’t give a shyt about the courts. They don’t think the Impoundment Act applies to them, and that neither Congress or the Courts have the power to tell them to spend money on things they don’t like.
- There may be superficial actions and statements that look like compliance with the requirement to reverse the freezes and termination orders, but in practice there will be no meaningful change and in any case they have already destroyed the administrative and bureaucratic mechanisms for actually making payments and eliminated the people who would make those payments.
- What is happening to USAID is only the first step in the Administration’s long-term plan to completely reshape how government works, and make it a tool for financing and supporting organizations and initiatives that are friendly to MAGA and their political allies. That started with USAID - since it was the most vulnerable agency - but is now spreading quickly to domestic programs. The ultimate goal is to seize control of all government payments. And the really big targets for that are the ones with the most cash - Medicaid and Social Security.
