The recent ruling by federal judge Amir Ali represents a setback for the Trump administration, which had ordered an abrupt 90-day freeze on U.S. foreign aid. The measure was considered illegal by several affected organizations, including companies and NGOs that depend on these resources. According to Ali, the government did not take into account the devastating impacts of the decision, which resulted in the closure of companies, mass layoffs and waste of essential inputs, such as food and medicines, according to an article in Politico.

In the ruling, the judge argued that the Trump administration acted in an "arbitrary and capricious" manner, suddenly suspending international assistance without a plausible justification. He pointed out that the review of the aid programs did not necessarily require a total and immediate suspension of contracts already signed. Thus, it determined that the freeze be suspended while the litigation on the case continues, according to the publication.

The court order also prevented Trump aides, such as Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Director of the Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, from implementing cancellations or interruptions of contracts signed before the former president's inauguration. This decision interrupted part of one of the executive orders signed by Trump on his first day in office.

The government's defense, represented by the Department of Justice, maintained that the decision to freeze foreign aid was made under presidential authority and therefore should not be subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act (APA). However, Ali rejected this argument, stating that such an interpretation would allow any government action to be reclassified as a presidential order to escape judicial oversight.

Ali's decision is one of others that have blocked Trump's attempts to drastically reduce funding for government agencies and aid programs. Other federal judges have previously issued similar orders preventing spending freezes on both domestic and international programs. Thus, the judgment reinforces the limitation of the executive branch to implement significant changes without congressional support and without considering the immediate consequences of these actions.