From USAID to Funding Freeze, Judges Derail Trump’ Agenda

In a rapid-fire series of rulings, Biden-appointed judges blocked Trump’s moves on foreign aid, federal grants, and refugees, igniting a fierce backlash from the White House and praise from Democrats. The decisions signal a rocky road ahead for the administration’s bold agenda.

BY PC Bureau

In a stunning 90-minute span on Tuesday, President Donald Trump’s administration faced a trio of legal setbacks as three federal judges issued rulings dismantling major executive actions, intensifying an already fraught legal battle over his policy agenda, CNN reported.

The decisions, handed down by judges appointed by former President Joe Biden, targeted foreign aid freezes, federal funding pauses, and refugee resettlement restrictions, prompting sharp reactions from both Trump allies and Democrats while raising questions about the administration’s next steps.

A Triple Blow in Court

The judicial onslaught began in Washington, D.C., where U.S. District Judge Amir Ali rejected the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with his prior order to release foreign aid managed by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Ali had weeks earlier directed the administration to unfreeze the funds, only for Secretary of State Marco Rubio and acting USAID director Peter Marocco to argue that the suspensions were lawful after a review of the grants. Ali’s latest ruling dismissed their defense as inadequate, ordering the aid to flow immediately and accusing the administration of flouting judicial authority.

Next, U.S. District Judge Loren AliKhan, also in D.C., delivered a blistering critique of the administration’s attempt to pause federal funding and grants across the board. Issuing a preliminary injunction, she called the freeze “ill-conceived from the beginning,” pointing out its staggering scope—potentially halting up to $3 trillion in spending overnight or requiring agencies to audit all grants, loans, and funds in under 24 hours. “The breadth of that command is almost unfathomable,” AliKhan wrote, suspending the policy indefinitely.

The third ruling came from U.S. District Judge Jamal Whitehead in Washington State, who blocked Trump’s effort to freeze refugee resettlement nationwide. Whitehead argued that the move “amount[ed] to an effective nullification of congressional will” in shaping the nation’s refugee program. While acknowledging the president’s discretion to limit admissions, he emphasized that such power has legal boundaries Trump had overstepped.

Trump Allies Cry Foul

ALSO READ: Governor Holds talks with Wanted Arambai Tenggol Chieftains

Secretary of State Rubio, addressing reporters late Tuesday, defended the foreign aid freeze, arguing it was a necessary step to ensure funds weren’t misused. “We’re not defying the court; we’re protecting American taxpayers. Judge Ali’s ruling ignores the realities of national security and fiscal responsibility,” Rubio said. Similarly, Trump took to social media, posting, “The radical left judges are out of control—trying to stop me from fixing Biden’s mess. We’ll fight this and WIN!”

Legal experts close to the administration suggested the rulings could galvanize Trump’s base by reinforcing his narrative of a “deep state” working against him. “This is red meat for his supporters,” said one conservative strategist. “It’s a chance to rally the troops and frame the judiciary as an enemy of his agenda.”

Democrats Celebrate a Win

Democrats, meanwhile, hailed the decisions as a critical check on what they call Trump’s overreach. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer called the rulings “a victory for the rule of law and a rebuke of Trump’s reckless governance.” In a statement, Schumer added, “These judges upheld the Constitution and Congress’s authority against a president who thinks he’s above both.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi echoed that sentiment, focusing on the refugee resettlement ruling. “Trump’s cruel policies have no place in America. Judge Whitehead’s decision ensures we remain a beacon of hope for the world’s most vulnerable,” she said. Progressive activists also cheered, with immigration advocates praising the restoration of refugee programs and aid groups welcoming the unfreezing of USAID funds.

Some Democrats speculated that the rulings could embolden further legal challenges. “This is just the beginning,” said Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. “Every time Trump tries to govern by fiat, the courts are proving they’re a backstop.”

Implications of the Orders

The immediate impact of Tuesday’s rulings is significant. The USAID funds, totaling hundreds of millions of dollars, will now flow to international partners, reversing delays that had strained diplomatic ties. The federal funding injunction halts a policy that threatened to disrupt everything from infrastructure projects to research grants, though the indefinite suspension leaves room for further litigation. And the refugee resettlement decision ensures that thousands of vetted refugees can proceed with their relocation plans, at least for now.

Longer term, the rulings signal a judiciary increasingly willing to scrutinize Trump’s executive actions. CNN legal analyst Devan Cole noted that these cases reflect a broader trend: judges issuing preliminary injunctions to pause contested policies, often as a final trial-level step before appeals. With all three judges being Biden appointees, the decisions also fuel debates over partisanship in the judiciary—a charge likely to intensify as appeals unfold.

For Trump, the losses complicate his early-term momentum. Facing a divided Congress and a Supreme Court that has yet to weigh in, his administration must now decide whether to double down on these policies through appeals or pivot to less legally fraught priorities. Political analysts suggest the outcomes could shape his legislative strategy, forcing more negotiation with lawmakers if unilateral actions keep hitting judicial walls.

As of February 26, 2025, the legal skirmishes show no sign of abating. With the administration signaling appeals and Democrats vowing to press their advantage, Tuesday’s rulings may prove a pivotal moment in Trump’s presidency—one that tests the limits of executive power in an era of polarized courts and politics.