Latest news with #KarenHenderson
The Hill
10 hours ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Trump administration restores public spending data after legal fight
The Trump administration restored a public database that showed how funding is apportioned to federal agencies following a recent order by a federal appeals court. Public access to the data was restored over the weekend, not long after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit panel ordered the website be restored in a unanimous ruling. 'To hear the Government tell it, the separation of powers hangs in the balance and only this Court can set things right. But when it comes to appropriations, our Constitution has made plain that congressional power is at its zenith,' U.S. Circuit Judge Karen Henderson wrote last week. Under the apportionments process, agencies are given limited authority to spend funding allocated by Congress in installments. Congress required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to implement an 'automated system to post each document apportioning an appropriation' as part of a legislative funding deal signed into law in 2022. The office was also ordered to 'operate and maintain' the automated system for 'fiscal year 2023 and each fiscal year thereafter' in another funding bill that also became law that year. But the website went dark earlier this year after the Trump administration said it could not continue to operate the system, arguing it contained sensitive information that could pose a threat to national security. Advocates have hailed the return of the tracker as a major win for transparency, as the administration has faced legal challenges in recent months over efforts to freeze funding already allocated by Congress. 'Publicly disclosing apportionments helps protect against any illegal abuses or withholdings of funds as President Trump attempted to do when he sought to illegally withhold federal funds from Ukraine in exchange for political favors,' Donald K. Sherman, executive director and chief counsel for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), said in a statement. 'We are gratified that Congress and the public will not be left in the dark while this case proceeds, and we will continue to fight for the permanent availability of this information.' Cerin Lindgrensavage, counsel for Protect Democracy, also said in a statement Monday that access to the apportionment process 'means we can finally see where OMB may have abused this tool to unlawfully delay spending.' Both groups sued the administration over the website's previous takedown. However, Democrats have continued to raise scrutiny over the administration's revival of the database, with some describing the website's return as a 'partial restoration.' 'It should never have required months in court for this administration to begin complying with a truly basic and straightforward transparency requirement,' Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement on Monday. 'OMB must now ensure every last bit of this important budget data that has been hidden is promptly made public, as the court has ordered, and that the data is posted within days, as the law requires, going forward.'
Al Jazeera
6 days ago
- Politics
- Al Jazeera
US appeals court lifts injunction on Trump effort to slash foreign aid
A United States appeals court has ruled that President Donald Trump can proceed with efforts to slash foreign aid payments, despite such funds being designated by Congress. The two-to-one ruling on Wednesday overturned a previous injunction that required the State Department to resume the payments, including about $4bn for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and $6bn for HIV and AIDS programmes. But the majority opinion from the appeals court did not weigh the merits of whether Trump could nix congressionally approved funds. Instead, it decided the case based on the idea that the plaintiffs did not meet the legal basis to qualify for a court injunction. Writing for the majority, Circuit Judge Karen Henderson said the groups in question 'lack a cause of action to press their claims'. They include the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network, both recipients of federal aid. 'The grantees have failed to satisfy the requirements for a preliminary injunction in any event,' wrote Henderson, who was appointed by former President George HW Bush. She was joined in her decision by Gregory Katsas, a Trump appointee. However, the panel's third judge — Florence Pan, nominated under former President Joe Biden — issued a dissenting opinion that argued Trump should not be allowed to violate the separation of powers by cutting the aid. 'The court's acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive's unlawful behaviour derails the carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power that serves as the greatest security against tyranny — the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch,' Pan wrote in her opinion. The ruling hands a victory to the Trump administration, which has faced a series of legal challenges over his efforts to radically reshape the federal government. That includes through dramatic cuts to spending and government agencies like USAID, which was established by an act of Congress. Almost immediately upon taking office, Trump announced a 90-day pause on all foreign aid. He has since moved to gut USAID, prompting outcry from two of his predecessors, presidents Barack Obama and George W Bush. By March, the Trump administration had announced it planned to fold USAID into the State Department, fundamentally dismantling the agency. That same month, Secretary of State Marco Rubio also said he had cancelled 83 percent of USAID's contracts. Part of Trump's reasoning for these changes was to reduce 'waste' and 'bloat' in the government. He also sought to better align government programming with his 'America First' agenda. But critics say the executive branch does not have the power to tear down congressionally mandated agencies. They also argue that Congress has the power to designate funds for aid, framing Trump's efforts as a push for extreme presidential power. Republicans, however, control both houses of Congress, and in July, it passed the Rescission Act of 2025, allowing the government to claw back nearly $9bn in foreign aid and funding for public broadcasting. US District Judge Amir Ali previously ruled that the Trump administration must pay its agreed-upon funds with humanitarian groups and other contractors that partnered with the government to distribute aid. Administration officials in February estimated there was $2bn in outstanding aid payments due by the deadline Judge Ali set. But the appeals court's ruling has set back cases to restore the foreign aid to the contractors. Attorney General Pam Bondi celebrated the decision on Wednesday, stating that the Justice Department would 'continue to successfully protect core Presidential authorities from judicial overreach'.
Politico
6 days ago
- Politics
- Politico
Humanitarian groups cannot challenge Trump's impoundment of foreign aid grants, appeals court rules
Under federal law, only the U.S. comptroller general can challenge an impoundment of funds by the president, Judge Karen Henderson, a George H.W. Bush appointee, wrote in the majority opinion. The comptroller general leads the Government Accountability Office, which is housed in the legislative branch and monitors the way the federal government spends congressional appropriations. Comptrollers general are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Senate. They serve for 15-year terms and cannot be reappointed. The current comptroller general is Gene Dodaro, who was nominated by Barack Obama in 2010, and his term expires later this year. The Impoundment Control Act, Henderson wrote, outlines a notification process between the GAO and lawmakers that must be carried out before the comptroller general can sue the president over an alleged impoundment. 'It does not make sense that the Congress would craft a complex scheme of interbranch dialogue but sub silentio also provide a backdoor for citizen suits at any time and without notice to the Congress of the alleged violation,' Henderson wrote. Supreme Court precedent has 'rejected the idea that a plaintiff may transform a statutory claim into a constitutional one to avoid limits on judicial review,' she wrote. A spokesperson for the Global Health Council, the lawsuit's lead plaintiff, didn't immediately respond to a request for comment. Trump officials applauded the ruling on social media.
Yahoo
6 days ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Appeals court ruling will let Trump administration cut billions in foreign aid
A federal appeals court has reversed a lower court's ruling, clearing the way for the Trump administration to cut billions in foreign aid funding this year. In a 2-1 decision Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overruled a lower court's decision that prohibited the Trump administration from making drastic cuts to USAID funding that had already approved by Congress. The court sidestepped the substantive question of whether the cuts were constitutional, instead deciding that the nonprofits that sued the Trump administration lacked the standing to bring a case. MORE: Supreme Court rules Trump administration must unfreeze foreign aid payments Judges Karen Henderson and Gregory Katsas -- appointed by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively -- determined that only the head of the Government Accountability Office has the authority to sue under the Impoundment Control Act. "The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims," the majority wrote. The lawsuit over USAID funding had been one of the first major legal successes for nonprofits challenging the Trump administration, which ordered the suspension of grants that didn't comply with the president's priorities. After U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order in February blocking Trump's executive order from taking effect, both the D.C. circuit court and the United States Supreme Court sided with the nonprofits, denying a request from the Trump administration to block an order enforcing the TRO. In a dissenting opinion issued with Wednesday's ruling, Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, criticized her colleagues for ignoring the concern that the funding cuts were unconstitutional and thus harmed "the rule of law and the very structure of our government." "At bottom, the court's acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive's unlawful behavior derails the 'carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power' that serves as the 'greatest security against tyranny -- the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch," she wrote.
6 days ago
- Politics
Appeals court ruling will let Trump administration cut billions in foreign aid
A federal appeals court has reversed a lower court's ruling, clearing the way for the Trump administration to cut billions in foreign aid funding this year. In a 2-1 decision Wednesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overruled a lower court's decision that prohibited the Trump administration from making drastic cuts to USAID funding that had already approved by Congress. The court sidestepped the substantive question of whether the cuts were constitutional, instead deciding that the nonprofits that sued the Trump administration lacked the standing to bring a case. Judges Karen Henderson and Gregory Katsas -- appointed by Presidents George H. W. Bush and Donald Trump, respectively -- determined that only the head of the Government Accountability Office has the authority to sue under the Impoundment Control Act. "The district court erred in granting that relief because the grantees lack a cause of action to press their claims," the majority wrote. The lawsuit over USAID funding had been one of the first major legal successes for nonprofits challenging the Trump administration, which ordered the suspension of grants that didn't comply with the president's priorities. After U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order in February blocking Trump's executive order from taking effect, both the D.C. circuit court and the United States Supreme Court sided with the nonprofits, denying a request from the Trump administration to block an order enforcing the TRO. In a dissenting opinion issued with Wednesday's ruling, Judge Florence Pan, a Biden appointee, criticized her colleagues for ignoring the concern that the funding cuts were unconstitutional and thus harmed "the rule of law and the very structure of our government." "At bottom, the court's acquiescence in and facilitation of the Executive's unlawful behavior derails the 'carefully crafted system of checked and balanced power' that serves as the 'greatest security against tyranny -- the accumulation of excessive authority in a single Branch," she wrote.
