Charlie Kirk Slams Supreme Court Over USAID Funding Decision

Charlie Kirk Voices Disappointment on Supreme Court Ruling

On March 6, 2025, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk appeared on 'The Ingraham Angle' to discuss a recent Supreme Court decision regarding President Donald J. Trump's attempt to block nearly $2 billion in funding to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Kirk expressed strong disapproval of the court's 5-4 ruling, which rejected the administration's bid to pause these payments, ensuring that the funds would be disbursed to USAID contractors despite efforts to dismantle the agency.

Kirk emphasized that this decision represents a missed opportunity to address what he sees as a critical issue facing the nation. He argued that the ruling allows significant taxpayer money to flow out of American coffers at a time when domestic priorities should take precedence. His comments reflect a broader concern among supporters of President Trump’s policies, who view such funding as contrary to an America-first approach.

Details of the Supreme Court Decision

The Supreme Court ruling, issued on March 5, 2025, mandated that the Trump administration must pay up to $2 billion to USAID contractors. This decision came as the administration continues its push to restructure or dissolve the agency under President Trump’s directive to prioritize national interests. The court’s narrow 5-4 vote saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joining Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in rejecting the administration’s request to maintain a freeze on the funds.

At around the 2:30 mark of the discussion on 'The Ingraham Angle,' Kirk highlighted the financial burden this places on American taxpayers. He questioned why such substantial sums are being allocated to foreign aid when there are pressing needs at home. This sentiment aligns with the administration’s ongoing efforts to redirect resources toward domestic security and economic stability.

Broader Implications for Presidential Authority

Beyond the immediate financial impact, Kirk pointed out a deeper concern regarding judicial overreach. Around the 4:15 point in the segment, he suggested that the Supreme Court failed to tackle what he described as a constitutional crisis involving national injunctions by activist judges. He argued that these injunctions undermine the executive branch’s ability to enact policies reflective of the electorate’s will, a key pillar of President Trump’s agenda.

This perspective ties into a larger narrative within the administration’s second term, now past its first 100 days, where legal challenges have frequently met executive actions. The USAID funding decision is seen as part of a series of high-stakes court battles that test the boundaries of presidential authority. Supporters of President Trump, including Kirk, see these judicial interventions as obstacles to fulfilling campaign promises aimed at reshaping federal spending priorities.

Support for America-First Policies

Kirk’s appearance on 'The Ingraham Angle' underscored a steadfast commitment to President Trump’s vision of putting American interests first. At approximately the 6:00 mark, he urged for continued efforts to challenge wasteful spending, echoing sentiments shared by figures like Elon Musk, who has also criticized government inefficiencies. Kirk’s call to action resonates with those who believe that federal agencies like USAID should not divert resources away from critical domestic programs.

The discussion also touched on recent moves by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) to operate within USAID, a step supported by a federal appeals court ruling on March 29, 2025. This development is viewed as a win for the administration’s broader goal of restructuring federal agencies to align with President Trump’s policies. Kirk emphasized that such measures are essential to ensuring that taxpayer dollars are used responsibly and in service of American citizens.

Looking Ahead

As the Trump administration navigates these legal and policy challenges, voices like Charlie Kirk’s play a crucial role in rallying support for a reevaluation of federal spending. The USAID funding decision, while a setback, is unlikely to deter ongoing efforts to reform or eliminate programs deemed inconsistent with national priorities. Kirk’s critique of the Supreme Court ruling serves as a reminder of the administration’s resolve to fight for policies that protect American taxpayers.

With thousands of USAID terminations set to take effect by September 2025, as part of the agency’s drawdown, the debate over foreign aid versus domestic investment will likely intensify. For now, Kirk and other advocates of President Trump’s agenda remain focused on pushing back against judicial decisions that they believe hinder progress toward a stronger, more self-reliant nation.