The U.S. ultimate Court supported Donald Trump's temporary suspension of $4 billion of abroad aid. The conservative majority of judges ruled that the President's flexibility in abroad policy prevails over "potential damage" to beneficiaries of aid.
The decision is temporary and valid as long as legal proceedings are pending, but in fact it is freezing funds. The ruling is an crucial step in Trump's efforts to challenge Congress' control over government spending.
Opposition by Liberal Judges
Justice Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson objected to the decision. They considered that "the stakes are high: the division of power between executive power and Congress".
Nicolas Sansone of the nonprofit organization Public Citizen Litigation Group rated that "this consequence further undermines the rule of division of power." He added that the decision would have "serious humanitarian consequences".
Support organisations actions
Two non-profit organizations, AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Global wellness Council, filed a suit against the freezing of funds. They argue that the cessation of aid violates the Constitution.
Frozen funds were earmarked for food security, trade improvement and humanitarian aid, including support for victims of torture. Trump suspended backing by an implementing regulation issued on the first day after taking office in the second term.
Trump strategy
The president wants to adjust abroad aid for his abroad policy. The ultimate Court, with a conservative majority of six judges, had repeatedly accepted Trump's requests for emergency aid.
According to the fresh York Times, although these regulations are formally temporary, they had far-reaching consequences. They allowed the administration to abolish the protection of hundreds of thousands of migrants, relieve independent government regulators and remove transgenders from the army.
Sources used: "PAP", "New York Times" Note: This article has been edited with the aid of Artificial Intelligence.
