• The U.S. appeals court ruled that Trump can cut billions in foreign aid.
• Two judges concluded that grant recipients lacked legal standing to challenge the freeze.
• This ruling overturns a lower court's decision requiring restoration of funds.
• The decision allows for a 90-day pause on foreign assistance funding.
• Critics warn that the cuts could have severe humanitarian impacts worldwide.

A federal appeals court has ruled that the Trump administration is allowed to suspend or terminate billions of dollars in foreign aid, overturning a previous lower court order that mandated the restoration of these funds. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit delivered this 2-1 decision, framing it as a significant victory for President Trump who, on his first day in office for a second term, imposed a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid funding, deemed by him as wasteful spending, according to BBC, Los Angeles Times, and HuffPost.

The court concluded that the plaintiffs, which include nonprofit groups like the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network, did not have the legal standing to bring the case, leading to the majority decision written by Judge Karen Henderson. She stated, “the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims,” emphasizing that only the U.S. Government Accountability Office is authorized to challenge such decisions made by the Executive branch, according to CBS News, India Times, and TRT Global.

The previous injunction, issued by District Judge Amir Ali, had required the administration to release nearly $2 billion earmarked for humanitarian aid. However, the appeals court vacated this order, stating that the ruling did not address whether the funding freeze violated constitutional spending powers but merely questioned the plaintiffs' right to sue, as detailed in reports from Reuters, South China Morning Post, and Anadolu Agency.

In dissent, Judge Florence Pan criticized her colleagues for enabling what she described as "the Executive’s unlawful behavior,” warning that such decisions undermine constitutional checks and balances, which are vital to prevent excessive authority in a single branch of government, as noted in ABC News and Independent.