Subscriber Benefit
As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
The American Bar Association is suing members of the federal government for freezing funding for the United States Agency for International Development, an independent agency established by Congress that designates yearly funding for foreign assistance.
The lawsuit, filed Tuesday in the United States Court for the District of Columbia, alleged that by freezing the funding, President Donald Trump and other defendants are risking instability in countries around the world by opening opportunities to U.S. adversaries
The ABA and other plaintiffs argue that the freezing of funding is not justified beyond aligning with Trump’s “policy agenda.”
A memo by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio cited one of Trump’s executive orders as the basis for the freeze, saying, “[i]t is currently impossible to access sufficient information in one place to determine whether the foreign assistance policies and interests supported by appropriations are not duplicated, are effective, and are consistent with President Trump’s foreign policy,” according to the lawsuit.
Plaintiffs include the ABA, the Global Health Council, the Small Business Association for International Companies, the Hebrew Immigrant Aid Society , Management Sciences for Health, Chemonics International, Inc., Dai Global, LLC, and the Democracy International, Inc.
Defendants include Trump and members of the U.S. Department of State, USAID, and the U.S. Office of Management and Budget.
The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to Indiana Lawyer’s request for comment before Thursday’s deadline.
When asked for comment on the lawsuit, the ABA Communications Division referred the Indiana Lawyer to its press release on the matter.
In the release, William Bay, president of the ABA, issued the following statement:
“The actions of the president and other executive branch officials to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which was established by Congress to administer billions of dollars of foreign assistance funding, is unprecedented. The American Bar Association cannot overstate the impact of this unlawful course of conduct. This administration seeks to halt funding even though Congress has authorized and appropriated it for the programs in question…Every administration has the right to review ongoing programs and set priorities, but those actions must be carried out in compliance with relevant constitutional and statutory requirements. There is a right way and a wrong way to do this. We have filed a suit to ensure that changes are consistent with the rule of law. The sudden dismantling of USAID has real-world consequences that cause harm not only to those we serve but also to those who serve others.”
The funding freeze began the day after Trump took office, when he issued Executive Order 14169, stating U.S. foreign-assistance programs were “antithetical to American values” and ordered a pause on funding, the lawsuit states.
Since then, defendants have issued a series of “vague, unreasoned directives implementing the executive order,” throwing those who rely on those assistance programs into turmoil and taking jobs away from thousands of Americans, according to the suit.
The USAID was established in 1961 to counter the influence of the Soviet Union during the Cold War and has since played a role in “furthering core U.S. interests by reducing the spread of communicable disease, fighting child poverty, improving access to education, and promoting economic growth, among other functions,” the lawsuit states. Presently, the USAID helps implement the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief program and is essential in addressing terrorism and international conflict, according to plaintiffs.
When the USAID was established as an independent agency outside of the Department of State in 1998, Congress circumscribed the president’s authority to make changes to its structure or operations.
According to the lawsuit, the president had 60 days after its establishment in 1998 to eliminate USAID, but former President Bill Clinton chose not to. Now, plaintiffs argue, the State Department e is effectively trying to discontinue its operations, going so far as to take the agency’s sign down from its headquarters.
The plaintiffs state that defendants have no authority to unilaterally withhold appropriated foreign-assistance funds, and that Trump lacks the constitutional power to “withhold funds that Congress has lawfully appropriated.”
They’re asking the court to declare Executive Order 14169 unconstitutional and unlawful. They also ask that the court permanently prevent defendants from dismantling USAID and from implementing the executive order and any other instructions that seek to implement the order, including Rubio’s memo.
The case is Global Health Council et al v. Donald J. Trump et al, 1:25-cv-402.
Please enable JavaScript to view this content.