A landmark ruling on Wednesday has allowed President Donald Trump's administration to halt billions in foreign aid, a decision hailed by supporters and condemned by humanitarian groups, as Newsweek reports.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has sided with Trump, giving him the green light to stop funding foreign aid projects previously secured by congressional approval.

The controversy began when Trump, criticizing foreign aid as "wasteful," implemented a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid payments upon his return to office on Jan. 20. This move echoed his "America First" policy but faced immediate legal challenges.

Legal battle over aid ensues

Two non-profit organizations, the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network, quickly filed a lawsuit challenging the freeze.

They argued that $10 billion allocated to the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for global health and HIV/AIDS programs should be delivered as Congress intended.

A lower U.S. district court initially sided with these organizations, ordering the administration to distribute nearly $2 billion in aid. However, this decision was appealed, leading to the recent ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals.

The appellate court's decision was divided, with a 2-1 vote in favor of President Trump's administration. Judge Karen Henderson, who wrote the majority opinion, argued that the Comptroller General possesses the sole right to bring lawsuits concerning budget impoundments under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 -- a law designed to restrict the president's ability to withhold funds approved by Congress.

Judicial opinions highlight divide

Attorney General Pamela Bondi lauded the appellate court's decision. "Another Justice Dept victory in court for President Trump's agenda! In a 2-1 ruling, the DC Circuit lifted an injunction ordering President Trump to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars on wasteful foreign aid projects. We will continue to protect core Presidential authorities from judicial overreach successfully," Bondi stated.

However, dissent arose within the court itself. Judge Florence Pan argued that the judiciary had failed in its duty to check presidential power, emphasizing the importance of judicial oversight when the administration steps beyond its legal bounds.

"It is our responsibility to check the President when he violates the law and exceeds his constitutional authority. We fail to do that here," Judge Pan expressed in her dissenting opinion.

Humanitarian concerns persist

The decision has sparked outcry among humanitarian groups and the affected grantees, who warn of severe consequences for vulnerable populations worldwide.

According to Lauren Bateman, a representative for some of the grantees, an appeal is being considered due to the potential dire humanitarian impact.

"I will seek further review from the court. In the meantime, countless people will suffer disease, starvation, and death from the administration's unconscionable decision to withhold life-saving aid from the world's most vulnerable people," said Bateman. This highlighted a grim outlook for those reliant on such aid.

As the legal back-and-forth continues, the broader implications of the court's decision on global humanitarian efforts and the role of judicial oversight in the balance of powers remain key issues at stake.

Exploration of next steps

Despite the setback, organizations affected by the cut have begun exploring all available legal avenues to challenge the appeals court's decision. This may include a push for a hearing in front of the full appeals court or possible progression to the Supreme Court.

The legal and moral debates surrounding the withdrawal of foreign aid emphasize the complexities of national policies impacting global health initiatives.

Advocates argue that this move may damage the United States' reputation as a global leader in humanitarian efforts.

The unfolding legal drama continues to unfold, opening discussions on accountability, governance, and the ethical obligations of powerful nations on the global stage.