A federal judge issued a stern warning to the Trump administration regarding the court order to unfreeze foreign-aid funding, emphasizing the need for compliance. Despite concerns raised by aid groups about the continued suspension of funding post the initial order, U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali refrained from holding administration officials in contempt.
Challenges with Funding Suspension
In response to complaints from aid groups, an official overseeing the administration’s foreign-aid revamp, Peter Marocco, acknowledged that a significant portion of payments remained on hold. Marocco clarified that the administration was not employing a blanket freeze but rather utilizing separate authority granted by aid contracts or federal law to halt payments.
Following Marocco’s declaration, aid groups sought contempt charges against Marocco and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, citing their perceived defiance of the court’s order.
Judge’s Firm Stand
In his latest ruling, Judge Ali reiterated the clarity of the restraining order issued on Feb. 13. He cautioned officials at the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department against circumventing the court’s directive through alternative labels or directives.
He emphasized that the agencies could suspend or terminate specific contracts after a diligent assessment but were prohibited from pausing funding during broader reviews.
Ensuring Compliance
Ali underscored that the restraining order did not authorize the blanket suspension of congressionally appropriated foreign aid pending contractual reviews. Any such actions were deemed contrary to the court’s injunction.
Despite the latest ruling, concerns persist regarding the administration’s adherence to the order. Aid groups lamented the delay in payments, citing adverse impacts on their operations and urging prompt disbursement of owed funds.
Continued Dispute
The controversy surrounding the funding freeze shows no signs of abating, with aid groups highlighting ongoing challenges in receiving payments. An email from a State Department official indicated a continued pause on grants, further fueling the debate over compliance.
As the situation unfolds, the court’s scrutiny remains on the administration’s actions, underscoring the importance of upholding legal obligations and ensuring timely aid disbursement.
