A divided U.S. Court of Appeals panel ruled that the Trump administration can suspend or end billions of dollars in foreign aid funding, dismissing legal challenges from grant recipients and emphasizing procedural and statutory limitations.

Judge Florence Pan dissented, arguing that the executive order overstepped constitutional bounds by disregarding the principle that the president cannot disobey laws for policy reasons.

This decision makes it more difficult for entities without existing contracts to challenge the president's budget cuts, though ongoing legal cases related to contract fulfillment may continue.

The case underscores ongoing legal and constitutional debates over the scope of presidential power, congressional authority over spending, and the limits of executive authority in foreign aid decisions.

Legal challenges by grant recipients are limited, as the court emphasized that only the Comptroller General of Congress can sue over impoundment issues, restricting outside entities' ability to challenge the aid freeze.

Legal experts criticize the ruling as problematic, with some describing it as a departure from constitutional norms that could restrict future constitutional challenges against presidential budget actions.

Critics view the ruling as a setback for the rule of law and separation of powers, with plans to seek further review and continue challenging the aid cuts.

The ruling supports the Trump administration's efforts to cut government spending and reshape federal agencies, despite ongoing legal challenges.

Commentators warn that the full court may reconsider the decision, as it could weaken congressional oversight and accountability.

Critics argue that the executive branch lacks unilateral authority to dismantle congressionally mandated agencies, asserting that Congress controls fund allocation.

The 2-1 decision sidestepped the constitutional issue of the legality of the cuts by ruling that challengeable parties lacked standing, emphasizing that only the legislative branch's Comptroller General can sue over impoundment.

Supporters, including Attorney General Pamela Bondi, praised the ruling as a victory for presidential authority, while critics argued it undermines oversight and enables illegal withholding of funds.

The case involved non-profit groups like AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Journalism Development Network, which sued over a $10 billion aid freeze claiming it was unlawful.