Summary
A federal judge ruled that Trump exceeded his constitutional authority by freezing USAID funding, stating Congress controls spending authority.
Judge Amir Ali ordered Trump officials to pay all of the roughly $2 billion it owed to aid groups and businesses but stopped short of ordering the reviving of the thousands of contracts abruptly terminated for U.S. aid and development work around the world.
Secretary of State Rubio announced the end of a six-week review resulting in elimination of 83% of USAID programs (5,200 of 6,200), with remaining programs transferred to the State Department.
Former USAID Administrator Natsios questioned what programs the administration actually supports, noting cuts to democracy, civil society, health, and emergency response initiatives.
This is not true. The United States v Trump ruling was that a president can not be held criminally liable for their exercise of the powers of the presidency. It does not mean that anything the president does is legal. It does not even mean that every presidential action is legal. Courts can still rule that a president’s actions are illegal and order injunctions, or even find contempt if court orders are not followed. This has already happened several times in the last month.
It’s a bad ruling but making it more catastrophic than it actually is does nobody any good.
But they left it wide open for interpretation of exactly what it means to exercise the powers of the presidency, which was the whole point of the case. No reasonable interpretation would include “encouraging an angry mob to storm the capitol building” but here we are.
And when I see someone successfully enforce one of those injunctions, court orders, or contempt charges, and it stands against appeal, I will happily agree that the justice system has not been completely kneecapped.
I really do hope you’re right and I’m blowing this out of proportion. I’m just not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel right now.
Isn’t the issue that regardless of the rule of law, Trump can always appeal, and the supreme court can grant a writ of certiorari to hear the appeal. So if the supreme court is corrupt enough then anything goes?
I’m not American, so I might be misunderstanding how the appeals process works.
I suppose this’d still be true with or without that previous ruling as well, but it does seem lay groundwork for further expansion, and the SC probably would want their rulings to look somewhat plausible so the lower courts don’t rebel en masse.
Make them do it. Don’t assume in advance that he’s a fully empowered dictator. We want the corruption and devolution of democracy to be spelled out clearly for everyone to see, not just assumed.