5-4 Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition
39 snips
Oct 14, 2025 This discussion dives into the implications of a Supreme Court ruling that could allow the government to withhold foreign aid, affecting millions. The hosts explore Nixon's legacy of impoundment and dissect how aid cuts could lead to a staggering 14 million deaths. They also critique how USAID creates dependency while serving U.S. geopolitical interests. The conversation highlights the political prioritization of funding cuts versus military support, reflecting a broader conservative legal shift limiting checks on executive power.
AI Snips
Chapters
Transcript
Episode notes
Executive Freeze Vs. Congressional Appropriation
- The Trump administration froze all State Department and USAID foreign aid citing an executive order to align spending with presidential policy.
- Plaintiffs argued the president cannot unilaterally halt congressionally appropriated foreign aid under separation of powers.
Impoundment Defined And Historical Stakes
- Impoundment is the presidential practice of withholding funds that Congress has appropriated.
- Historically it was contested as a violation of Congress's power of the purse and prompted statutory response in the 1970s.
Nixon's Impoundment And City Lawsuit
- Rhiannon recounts Nixon's large-scale impoundment after his 1972 reelection as a turning point.
- Cities sued and the Supreme Court later ruled in City of New York v. Train that the president could not impound funds under the Clean Water Act.