Legal chaos blocks Trump’s fight against government waste

The U.S. Supreme Court recently let the world know that it has the power to force presidential administrations to pay billions of dollars to dubious organizations, regardless of the case’s merits. If a judge sides with a nongovernmental organization that demands automatic payment for its alleged “work,” the Trump administration simply must hand over the money pronto.

From one angle, this may seem like an unfortunate speed bump on the way to eliminating waste and fraud in the government. However, from another angle, this may serve as a needed wake-up call to the world about what’s really holding back reform efforts.

Compared to the debt crisis, concerns about disregarding a dubious Supreme Court ruling seem insignificant.

John Daniel Davidson provided a clear summary of an otherwise complex case filled with legal jargon, contradictory rulings, and vague claims.

The case began when the Trump administration attempted to halt payments to USAID after uncovering evidence of waste and fraud. In response, several NGOs that received USAID funds objected and demanded the payments continue. A district court judge in Washington, D.C., Amir Ali, issued a temporary restraining order to override the pause. He later issued a second order requiring the government to distribute about $2 billion in grant funds within 36 hours.

The Trump administration challenged these rulings, taking the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Court then intervened, blocking the lower court’s decision and allowing the administration to argue that Judge Ali’s orders should be overturned. The administration maintained that the original pause should stand, especially since the NGOs had yet to justify their entitlement to the $2 billion. If they believe they have a valid claim, they can present their case in a federal claims court, the proper venue for such disputes.

Blistering dissent

Rather than affirm the constitutional authority of the executive to manage his own budget, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices sided with Ali and the NGOs, demanding that the Trump administration quit stalling and pay up.

Justice Samuel Alito’s blistering dissent sums up the matter succinctly: “The Government must apparently pay the $2 billion posthaste — not because the law requires it, but simply because a District Judge so ordered.”

To clarify the situation, consider this analogy:

A man buys a restaurant and reviews the budget left by the previous owner. He notices questionable purchases and realizes the staff has been dishonest. Concerned about financial mismanagement, he halts payments and reassesses the budget. But the staff, afraid he’ll uncover deeper corruption, enlists a crooked cop to block his efforts. When the new owner challenges this interference in court, the judge sides with the corrupt staff and officer.

In both this scenario and the Trump administration’s case, two paths forward exist. One option, echoing the absurdity in Franz Kafka’s “The Trial,” is to accept an irrational ruling and move on, assuming that legal chaos is inevitable. With over 100 injunctions still under appeal, the administration could hope for a more favorable decision in the future — but there’s no guarantee.

No other choice

The other way would be to ignore this ruling and get to work. And before corporate media pundits cry “constitutional crisis,” they should consider the bigger issue: The government wastes trillions of taxpayer dollars on programs no one asked for, while the country drowns in debt. Compared to that crisis, concerns about disregarding a dubious Supreme Court ruling seem insignificant.

Yet, most justices refuse to acknowledge this reality. Instead, they insist on upholding a system that cannot sustain itself. As economist Jeffrey Tucker recently noted, when unlimited money flows through a system without accountability, and no one is incentivized to ensure it is spent wisely, bankruptcy is practically inevitable.

A fitting analogy would be the scholars of Constantinople debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin while a horde of Ottoman Turks prepared to sack the city. Today, our judiciary engages in similar frivolities — deliberating over payments to ineffective NGOs while the federal government careens toward insolvency.

Will ignoring the ruling upset those who cling to the sanctity of the courts and the bureaucrats who exploit that deference? Of course. But when the alternative is national bankruptcy, Americans have no other choice.