House Republicans eye measure to strip federal judges of power to rule on foreign aid

WASHINGTON (CN) — House Republicans are set to broaden their backlash to the federal judiciary, with top lawmakers on Wednesday teasing a new bill aimed at restricting judges’ authority to rule on the expenditure of foreign aid.

The proposed bill, sponsored by Florida Representative Brian Mast, comes just weeks after the Supreme Court ruled that the Donald Trump administration must comply with a lower court’s order to resume roughly $2 billion in aid payments the White House froze earlier this year.

Writing in an op-ed published in conservative outlet Breitbart Wednesday, Mast and Ohio Representative Jim Jordan slammed the ruling as “judicial hubris” and took particular aim at U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, the jurist who initially mandated that the Trump administration restart aid disbursements.

“A new administration must have latitude to carry out the wishes of the American people,” the Republicans wrote. “Judge Ali’s ruling allows for no such discretion.”

Mast and Jordan accused Ali, appointed by former President Joe Biden, of “substituting his own foreign policy interests” over those of the Trump White House and Congress. And they contended that the case was wrongfully filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia — the lawmakers said that the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, which primarily hears monetary suits against the government, should have handled challenges to the foreign aid freeze.

“Judge Ali’s decision subverts the will of the American people,” the Republicans said. “One individual judge was able to impose a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers, single-handedly redefining America’s foreign policy priorities by deciding what can and cannot be funded via foreign aid.”

Mast’s bill, which has yet to be made public, would “take the power away” from federal judges to rule on suits against the U.S. government related to foreign aid. He and Jordan argued that the move would allow the “proper court,” presumably the Court of Federal Claims, to consider foreign aid challenges and determine whether each program should be funded.

The measure would also hand new presidential administrations 180 days to “review and realign” foreign aid with its national security priorities.

A spokesperson for Mast’s office did not immediately respond to multiple requests for comment or for the text of his forthcoming bill.

Republicans have for months raged against the federal judiciary, which has on several occasions stood in the way of the Trump administration’s sweeping executive agenda. Furious about what has become a cascade of injunctions and restraining orders against White House actions, GOP lawmakers have branded some judges as political activists and called for consequences.

In response to the courts’ intervention, the House earlier this month passed California Representative Darrell Issa’s No Rogue Rulings Act, a measure that if made law would severely restrict the judiciary’s powerv to issue nationally binding injunctions against presidential administrations.

Though the White House has backed Issa’s bill, it’s unclear that it will survive in the Senate where Republicans will need to woo several Democratic votes to approve it.

Lawmakers have framed their backlash to the recent spate of rulings against Trump as necessary action to restore the balance of power between the branches of government. And, writing in their op-ed Wednesday, Mast and Jordan repeated that argument, contending that the system of checks and balances was not designed to have “one rogue judge direct foreign policy for the entire free world.”

“That judge is not the commander-in-chief,” they said. “He’s not the Secretary of State of the Secretary of Defense. He’s not a member of the National Security Council and he’s certainly not a member of Congress with the power to authorize and fund foreign policy.”

The Supreme Court in a 5-4 decision last month ruled that the Trump administration could not extend its pause on foreign aid for contractors working with the U.S. Agency for International Development. The ruling, which dissenting Justice Samuel Alito called an “unfortunate misstep,” upheld Ali’s earlier decision.

The Trump White House, which initially refused to comply with the federal court, argued at the time that the president had broad executive authority to halt foreign assistance, and accused the lower court of meddling in the administration’s constitutional powers with its ruling.

Meanwhile, USAID remains largely defunct after the Trump administration — under the auspices of Elon Musk and his Department of Government Efficiency outfit — gutted the foreign aid service and canned most of its staff.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio in March announced that the government would cancel 83% of USAID’s programing and that the remaining services would be moved under the State Department.

Follow @BenjaminSWeiss