States Argue Freeze Oversteps Executive Authority, Harms Local Economies
BALTIMORE, MD — Maryland Attorney General Anthony G. Brown has joined a coalition of 23 attorneys general in opposing a Trump administration policy that froze billions of dollars in foreign aid funding. In a legal brief filed in the case Global Health Council, et al. v. Trump, the coalition challenges what it describes as an unlawful executive overreach that bypasses Congress’s constitutional power over federal spending.
The amicus brief, submitted to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, argues that President Trump’s executive order in January 2025—which directed a freeze on funds appropriated for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) programs—has inflicted substantial harm on states, including Maryland. The funds affected included money for global health, humanitarian assistance, and domestic research initiatives related to agriculture and public health.
“The Trump administration did not follow the proper process when it froze billions of dollars in foreign aid that Congress approved,” said Maryland Attorney General Brown. “This unlawful withholding of funds hurts Maryland organizations that serve immigrants and refugees and has cost hundreds of Marylanders their jobs. We won’t stand by while the administration ignores the law and harms workers and families.”
“Every year, our foreign aid programs bring together America’s small businesses, farmers, and top researchers to help save hundreds of thousands of lives across the globe,” said New York Attorney General James. “USAID has made our country and the world safer and more prosperous for decades, and this administration does not have the power to gut it on a whim. I am proud to join my fellow attorneys general in defending USAID and all those who work every day to support its lifesaving mission.”
The brief supports a federal district court’s earlier ruling that blocked the administration’s freeze, stating that the executive branch must make the full amount of foreign aid funds available as directed by Congress. The coalition contends that the President does not have unilateral authority to halt appropriated funds simply due to policy disagreements, a move they argue undermines the constitutional separation of powers.
In addition to the constitutional concerns, the attorneys general detail the real-world impact of the funding freeze, including the loss of research grants and contracts that benefit local economies. In Maryland alone, millions of dollars designated for universities, nonprofits, and small businesses are at risk.
The coalition calls on the appellate court to uphold the preliminary injunction and reinforce congressional authority over the federal purse.
Alongside Attorney General Brown, the brief was filed by attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‛i, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin.
The case could set a critical precedent on the limits of executive power in federal budgeting and the role of states in defending appropriated resources that support both international development and domestic economic interests.
