Article II, Section 1 explicitly states, “The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America.“
Executive, an adjective, means “the person or persons in whom the supreme executive power of a government is vested.“
Vested, an adjective, means “held completely, permanently, and inalienable.“
Supreme, an adjective, means “highest in rank or authority; paramount; sovereign; chief.“
Paramount, an adjective, means “above others in rank or authority; superior in power or jurisdiction.“
Only Congress has the constitutional power to create laws, authorize expenditures, and specify federal funds’ recipients.
What is the role of the Supreme Court in the expenditures of funds authorized by Congress? To answer this question, look to the U.S. Constitution, Article III, Section 2.
The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;—to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;—to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;—to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;—to Controversies between two or more States;— between a State and Citizens of another State,—between Citizens of different States,—between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects.
The answer is a resounding NONE. The Supreme Court has no role in the expenditure of funds authorized by Congress.
Important Question
Which branch of the federal government has the supreme authority over the expenditures of funds authorized by Congress? (Ask this question of your audience. Look out to them and await an answer.)
Can you cite even one sentence in the U.S. Constitution that cedes executive authority to the Judiciary? (Ask this question of your audience. Look out to them and await an answer.)
On Wednesday, March 5, 2025, “A divided Supreme Court on Wednesday turned down a request by the Trump administration to lift an order by a federal judge in Washington, D.C., that had directed the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign-aid reimbursements for work that has already been done.” [SCOTUS Blog, March 5, 2025 at 9:45 AM]
Conclusion
President Trump must ignore the leftist District Judge and the Supreme Court. He should execute his supreme authority over the execution of the laws of Congress. The Judiciary has no authority over the expenditures of funds authorized by Congress. Such authority rests solely with the Executive branch.
Confirmation 6/28/2025
Knowledge is Power
Author’s opinions after this Constitutional Minute was posted
USAID Payments
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, “ordered the Trump administration to speed up its payment on some of nearly $2 billion in debts to partners of the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department, giving it a Monday deadline to repay the nonprofit groups and businesses in a lawsuit over the administration’s abrupt shutdown of foreign assistance funding.”
Editorial position: Notice the verb “repay.” What is the meaning of repay? Dictionary: to pay back or refund, such as money owed. In this case the “controversy” was manufactured.
I understand the facts and the English language. USAID unconstitutionally gave an enormous sum of federal funds to a homosexual service. After the service spent those funds, they now demand repayment for the federal funds spent. Such thinking appears circular reasoning.Respecting federal authority to authorize such payments, I point Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, the enumerated powers of the federal government. There is no constitutional authority for the federal government to fund homosexuality or ancillary services to support the homosexual lifestyle.
I stay firm in my opinion President Trump acted within his constitutional authority.
Hampton Dellinger
Hampton Dellinger is a longtime Democratic activist and a friend of the Biden family. He sought to keep his job as head of the Office of Special Counsel (OSC). President Trump fired him on February 7.
The 3-judge panel of the D.C. Appellate Court determined the president would win on the merits of the case. The panel has choice words for Hampton Dellinger and D.C. District Judge Amy Berman Jackson (Barack Obama nominee) who kept him in the post for almost a month.
8 of the D.C. Appellate Court were appointed by Democrat presidents; 4 by Republican presidents. 2 seats remain vacant.
Supreme Court
By a 5-4 vote, the court rejected an emergency appeal from the Republican administration, while also telling U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his earlier order that required the quick release of nearly $2 billion in aid for work that had already been done.
It was the second time the new administration had sought and failed to persuade the conservative-led court with three appointees of President Donald Trump to rein in a federal judge who put the brakes on executive action taken by Trump.
Justice Samuel Alito led four conservative justices in dissent, saying Ali lacks the authority to order the payments. Alito wrote that he is stunned the court is rewarding “an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”
Source: AP News—Divided Supreme Court rejects Trump bid to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid
World Opinion, March 12, 2025: A reckless order to pay foreign aid—The Supreme Court sides with an aggressive district judge … while reining him in
Last week, the Supreme Court (5-4) refused to vacate a lower court order requiring the Trump administration to pay out some $2 billion in foreign aid. This led Justice Alito—joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh—to issue a blistering dissent questioning whether “a single district-court judge” should have “the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars.”
Justice Alito has a point. The federal courts are supposed to be the “least dangerous branch.” During the ratification debates, Alexander Hamilton wrote (Federalist 78) that the courts have neither the power of the purse nor the sword. He never envisioned an order like this district court’s.
The instant pair of cases arise out of the Trump administration’s 90-day pause on foreign-assistance funds. The president issued an executive order directing the State Department to assess programs for efficiency and consistency with American interests and values. The White House, for instance, has exposed problematic funding from USAID and the State Department, ranging from $1.5 million to advance DEI in Serbia, to at least $25,000 for a “transgender opera” in Colombia.
One Beneficiary of USAID ‘Benevolence’: HAMAS
During a late February House hearing on how USAID used its money, Middle East Forum Executive Director Greg Roman testified that “Dozens of terror organizations have received indirect assistance from U.S. foreign aid.”
Roman cited Gaza as a case study, telling lawmakers, “$2.1 billion in American taxpayers’ money (went) to Gaza since October 7, when Hamas invaded southern Israel. USAID money was going in terms of an emergency use authorization to try to go to parties that USAID formerly had a relationship with in the Gaza Strip.”
Roman continued, “They had to have been vetted by OFAC (the Office of Foreign Assets Control). They should have been vetted against the special designated terror list from the State Department and from other Treasury organizations.”
Source: CBN news—Israeli Expert: Through USAID, Taxpayers Funded Terror Regimes Even after October 7th Atrocities
Precedent
President Barack Obama enacted DAPA (Deferred Action for Parents of Americans). References:
- FACT SHEET: Immigration Accountability Executive Action, November 20, 2014.
- Texas OAG: Excerpts from Court Ruling Blocking President Obama’s Illegal Amnesty, February 17, 2015: “In formally announcing DAPA to the nation for the first time, President Obama stated, ‘I just took an action to change the law.’“
- Fox News, 2017: [Judge] Napolitano: Can Obama change laws on his own?
John N. White 