The U.S. Supreme Court has decided not to grant the Trump administration’s request to halt $2 billion in foreign aid payments that have already been contracted and completed.
Yesterday’s Supreme Court decision to force the Trump administration to release $2 billion in foreign aid might seem like a win for accountability, but it could mean bad news for the bigger picture. By a narrow 5-4 vote, the Court upheld a lower court’s order, overriding the… pic.twitter.com/j2lK8NPml4
— The Wrath of Dom (@Wrath_of_Dom) March 6, 2025
This decision emerged from a split ruling of 5-4, where the Court ordered U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify the government’s obligations in light of Ali’s earlier restraining order.
In a dissent, Justice Samuel Alito expressed his surprise, stating he was “stunned” by the majority’s ruling, supported by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
Alito raised a key question: “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” He clearly felt the answer should be a resounding “No.”
According to court reporter Amy Howe, Judge Ali is set to hold a hearing regarding the aid groups’ call for a preliminary injunction against the government’s freeze on foreign assistance, suggesting the issue might soon resurface in the Supreme Court.
The unsigned order from the Court came just days after Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily halted the enforcement of Ali’s earlier ruling that mandated payments by the night of February 26.
Notably, President Trump issued an executive order last month that aimed to restrict foreign aid disbursement to align strictly with his administration’s foreign policy directives.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio subsequently called for a broad freeze on various programs funded by both the U.S. Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
This led to multiple aid organizations filing a lawsuit against the administration, claiming that the freeze was unconstitutional and violated federal law.
In response to these developments, the Trump administration appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing the order disrupted a traditionally orderly review process regarding those funds.
The government contended that Congress had established a complex legal framework to handle claims for payments related to contracts and funding instruments, asserting their commitment to paying legitimate claims backed by proper documentation.
Since assuming office, President Trump has consistently sought to cut foreign aid through USAID and the State Department, citing concerns over wasteful spending.
As stated in a recent appeals court filing, his administration aims to reduce funding by an overwhelming 92%, which critics argue could jeopardize crucial aid to struggling populations worldwide.
Leave a Reply