Shock aid cuts are putting lives at risk
Cognitive dissonance is creating de facto loopholes, which Pres. Trump interprets as endorsement of extralegal actions. His cancellation of 92% of committed aid is putting millions of people at risk.
Yesterday, the Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court issued a temporary hold on a lower court order that required the Trump administration to follow through on payments for overseas development work that had already been completed. The hold was intended “to maintain the status quo”—meaning it aimed to avoid interfering with decision-making in the Executive branch, while further hearings proceed.
The hold clashes, in some ways, with normal use of the procedure, since it “maintains” an anomalous action that appears to be unlawful in a number of ways. First, the President does not have legal authority to refuse to pay contracts when the contracted work has been completed. Second, this is another piece of the wider struggle in which the President is attempting to assert authorities the Constitution grants only to Congress.
The deeper problem, however, is that the parties to the case and the Chief Justice all seem to have different ideas of what is at issue.
The complaint involves an essential question of American contract law: The government cannot use levers of public authority to ignore contractual obligations. The President is subject to the rule of law.
U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali recognized the gravity of the complaint and ordered the federal government to unfreeze foreign assistance frozen arbitrarily by Trump, and to pay all invoices for work completed before February 13.
The Chief Justice opted to treat this as an open question of law—whether the President has legal authority to enact such a pause—and so put a temporary hold on the lower court’s order, pending further evidence from the plaintiffs. Roberts seems to have given credence to an argument made by Trump’s representative, who argued the order to pay outstanding bills gave too short a timeline, given the bureaucratic complications created by the sudden cancellation of programs.
President Trump simply does not acknowledge anyone’s authority over his decision-making, and he has repeatedly shown he will interpret any concession on the question of his authority to be carte blanche to do as he likes.
The case is one of many that are bringing the three branches of the U.S. federal government to a major confrontation with how the Constitution sets and enforces the limits of Presidential authority. President Trump feels free to eliminate all foreign aid programs he wishes, without consultation or oversight, without regard for the laws that would constrain him.
The Associated Press is reporting:
The Trump administration’s decision to terminate 90% of USAID’s’ foreign aid contracts slammed humanitarian projects worldwide on Thursday, from a new hospital in troubled Haiti to the biggest HIV program on the planet in South Africa.
Health groups, non-governmental organizations and others who received money from the U.S. aid agency to do good work had been bracing for bad news since President Donald Trump’s executive order freezing the funding for a 90-day review on Jan. 20.
The move was announced shortly before Justice Roberts granted the temporary hold, on the premise that Trump’s sweeping cancellations make it difficult to reverse the effects. This timing futher complicates the question of the appropriateness of Justice Roberts’ purportedly narrow action.
Secretary Rubio had issued waivers for all humanitarian assitance, food assistance, and for efforts to contain potential major disease outbreaks, but contractors working on those programs say they have been frozen or cancelled anyway. The Trump administration took from Chief Justice Roberts’ narrow action a tacit approval of actions paused by federal courts as likely violating the Constitution, federal law, and existing contracts.
The Trump administration has terminated the contracts of some 10,000 projects receiving US Agency for International Development (USAID) grants – including HIV, malaria, and humanitarian aid projects.
Grants to hundreds of African HIV organisations providing life-saving services have been terminated with immediate effect via letters received on Thursday morning.
These actions are not merely decisions about specific grants issued by administration officials. They affect the viability of programs created by Congress or for which the funds in question were specifically appropriated by Congress, under its Article I authority to control the federal budget. While some Trump allies in Congress have called for cutting some of these programs, they are the ones responsible for doing so, by enacting legislation for a new budget.
At this writing, thousands of USAID grants and dozens of major programs and initiatives—which affect tens of millions of people’s health, safety, and chances at a life free from tyranny and violence—are at risk, though no act of Congress has altered the funding allocated to them. Development professionals warn tens of thousands of lives are at risk, even in the short term, if these programs are eliminated without any plan for a transition involving new solutions.
There is extensive evidence that cutting $60 billion in USAID funding will not save the U.S. any money. It will make the world less safe and undermine national security, while necessitating more emergency response investments for a range of crises from famine to disease to conflict.
The cuts also come at a particularly urgent moment in terms of new disease threats and spreading hunger and conflict risk.
A new, unknown, and highly lethal pathogen has emerged in the northwest Democratic Republic of Congo.
As Elon Musk admitted in the first meeting of Trump’s new Cabinet, he “accidentally fired” the Ebola containment teams from USAID, in the midst of an Ebola outbreak.
A worsening civil war in Sudan threatens another Darfur genocide and is spreading famine, which is made worse by USAID cuts.
Officials warn disease outbreaks and starvation deaths will increase as a direct result of these cuts; many believe lives have already been lost.
UPDATE—Thu, Feb 27, 2025
Federal judge orders Trump admin to reverse directives that led to mass firings
U.S. District Judge William Alsup has ordered the Office of Personnel Management to rescind directives that led to mass firings, finding the firings were probably illegal. Judge Alsup said in court that “Congress has given the authority to hire and fire to the agencies themselves. The Department of Defense, for example, has statutory authority to hire and fire.”
Judge Alsup added the very strongly worded admonition that “The Office of Personnel Management does not have any authority whatsoever under any statute in the history of the universe to hire and fire employees at another agency,” and that OPM hiring and firing authority is limited to “their own employees.”
The ruling is far-reaching, and goes beyond the question of whether labor protections and collective bargaining terms preclude dismissal of well-performing probationary employees. By finding there is no statutory authority for mass firings across agencies, the ruling calls into question the mass cancellation of contracts, without cause and when doing so contravenes budgetary direction from Congress.
Why USAID is so important
The United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is one of the most important institutions on the planet. It is one of the largest single donors of foreign aid, supporting life-saving initiatives that provide food, healthcare, economic development support, and other vital services. Since its creation, USAID has been a leading force in shap…
ADDITIONAL CONTEXT
