The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s request to halt a lower court’s order demanding the release of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. The ruling provided a temporary reprieve for international aid organizations and contractors awaiting payment for completed projects.
In a 5-4 decision, the justices stated that the February 26 deadline for payment had already passed, and they directed the case back to the district court to clarify any remaining details regarding the payments.
The Court noted, “Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and considering the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should clarify the Government’s obligations to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, while considering the feasibility of any timelines for compliance.”
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali responded swiftly, scheduling a hearing for Thursday to discuss possible repayment schedules. Both parties were instructed to come prepared with proposals that reflect the time that has passed since the temporary restraining order was issued, as well as the practicality of meeting those timelines.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, with Alito expressing strong disapproval, questioning whether a district court judge without jurisdiction should have the authority to force the U.S. government to pay out $2 billion in taxpayer money.
Earlier, Chief Justice John Roberts had temporarily paused the lower court’s decision requiring the administration to make the payments by 11:59 p.m., a deadline the Justice Department had argued was unachievable. Roberts did not provide an explanation for his decision, though it was widely expected that the matter would be referred to the full Court for review.
The decision to return the case to the lower court, however, could allow further delays in repayment, despite foreign aid groups’ concerns. These groups argued that the administration had failed to meet the deadline and had taken no steps to address the outstanding payments, despite the lower court’s order.
The Trump administration had frozen foreign aid payments, citing the need for government “efficiency” and the elimination of waste. In a court filing, Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris asserted that while the claims from the plaintiffs were likely legitimate, the timeline imposed by the lower court was not technically feasible and could infringe on the executive branch’s authority in matters of foreign policy.
Plaintiffs, however, rejected this argument, stating that the Trump administration had not made any effort to comply with the court’s order to release the funds. They further argued that the administration had dismantled systems needed to facilitate the payments and had removed staff who could have expedited the process.
The case highlights the ongoing tension over foreign aid cuts, part of the Trump administration’s broader plan to reduce U.S. funding for global projects, particularly through the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Critics warn that such cuts could lead to economic and security risks, especially in countries vulnerable to corruption, and could allow competitors like China to fill the void left by U.S. withdrawal.
For more political updates, visit, DC Brief.
