WASHINGTON, D.C – In a divided ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to allow President Donald Trump’s administration to withhold nearly $2 billion in payments owed to foreign aid organizations for work already completed.
The decision marks a legal setback for Trump as he moves to dismantle U.S.-funded humanitarian efforts worldwide.
In a 5-4 decision, the court upheld an earlier order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who had instructed the administration to release funds to contractors and grantees of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.
Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett broke ranks with their conservative colleagues to join the court’s three liberal justices in rejecting the administration’s request to keep the funding freeze in place.
On his first day back in office on January 20, Trump imposed a sweeping 90-day suspension on all foreign aid, citing his “America First” agenda.
The move effectively halted critical USAID programs that provide food, medical assistance, and refugee support.
Aid organizations sued, arguing that Trump lacked the legal authority to unilaterally stop spending that had already been approved by Congress.
Judge Ali initially ordered the administration to disburse the funds by February 26.
But as the deadline approached, Roberts temporarily paused the order to allow the Supreme Court to weigh in.
The justices ultimately sided against the administration, instructing Ali to clarify what steps the government must take to comply with his ruling.
Ali’s temporary restraining order remains in effect until at least March 10, and a hearing is set for Thursday on whether to issue a preliminary injunction against the aid freeze.
In a blistering dissent, Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, accused the majority of endorsing judicial overreach.
“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 in taxpayer dollars?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No.’”
Meanwhile, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, arguing on behalf of the administration, warned that enforcing Ali’s order would “unlawfully commandeer federal payment processes” and leave little time to verify the legitimacy of the invoices.
For aid organizations, the Supreme Court’s decision is a critical lifeline in the face of what they call an unprecedented humanitarian crisis triggered by the funding freeze.
“The government’s actions have largely brought this work to a halt,” lawyers for the foreign aid groups wrote in a filing to the court.
They warned that without immediate funding, global health programs, food assistance, and disaster relief efforts would continue to be severely disrupted, jeopardizing the lives of millions.
Among the plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, international development firm DAI Global, and refugee support organization HIAS.
Trump’s administration, with support from his adviser Elon Musk, has taken aggressive steps to shrink the federal government.
Beyond freezing foreign aid, the White House has moved to dissolve agencies, fire thousands of workers, and remove independent watchdogs.
As the administration sends termination notices to key aid organizations, global relief groups warn that the U.S. retreat from humanitarian efforts threatens vulnerable populations in conflict zones and regions battling deadly diseases.
With the Supreme Court’s latest decision, the legal battle is far from over.
Judge Ali’s Thursday hearing could determine whether Trump’s foreign aid freeze will be permanently blocked—or whether the administration will find another way to press forward with its rollback of U.S. humanitarian commitments.Top of Form
