The United States Supreme Court refused, on Wednesday (5), the request made by President Donald Trump’s administration to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress frozen. The vote result was 5 to 4. However, the court did not specify when the funds should be released, allowing the White House to continue contesting the issue in lower courts. The order was unsigned, but four conservative justices opposed it—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh. This put five justices in the majority, including Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The majority noted that since a deadline set by the court last week for spending the money had already passed, lower courts should “clarify what obligations the government must meet to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.” In a strongly worded dissent, Alito expressed being “shocked” by the court’s decision allowing the lower court judge to order the administration to unfreeze the foreign aid in question.
Alito also remarked: “A federal court has many tools to address the claimed non-performance of a party, but aggrandizing its jurisdiction is not one of them.” Despite the close 5 to 4 decision, Steve Vladeck, a CNN Supreme Court analyst, and professor at Georgetown University Law Center, described it as “extremely modest.” He stated, “The unsigned order does not require the Trump administration to immediately make up to $2 billion in foreign aid payments; it simply opens the possibility for the district court to mandate such payments, presumably if it’s more specific about the contracts that must be honored.”
The fact that four justices dissented—vigorously—suggests that the Court may divide along these lines in many of the most impactful Trump-related cases that are already underway. The appeal reached the high court in just a few days—exceptionally rapid for federal judiciary standards. It’s the second case before the justices involving Trump’s actions to consolidate power within the executive branch and drastically reshape the government after taking office in January.
At the core of the case are billions in foreign aid from the State Department and USAID, which Trump froze in January as part of his efforts to curb spending and align these agencies with his agenda. Several nonprofits, reliant on the funding for global health and other programs, sued, claiming the administration’s actions usurped Congress’s power to control government spending and violated a federal law governing how agencies make decisions.
In a brief last Friday (28), the groups described the administration’s actions as having a “devastating” impact. They told the court that the funding “advances U.S. interests abroad and improves—and, in many cases, literally saves—the lives of millions of people around the world.” They argued, “By doing so, it helps prevent problems like diseases and instability abroad from reaching our shores.”
On February 13, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ordered that most of the money continue to flow temporarily while he reviewed the case. Days later, the plaintiffs claimed the administration was defying this order and continuing to block the expenditure, prompting Ali to mandate the Trump administration to spend the money by midnight Wednesday. Ali was nominated to the court by President Joe Biden.
In a speech to the U.S. Congress, Donald Trump advocated for an aggressive tariff policy. The Trump administration filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court hours before the deadline, asking the court to at least pause it for a few days. The administration argued it is making “substantial efforts” to review payment requests and spend the money, but couldn’t open the pipeline quickly enough to meet Ali’s schedule.
The groups that sued rejected this explanation, arguing that a small number of political appointees within the administration “are effectively refusing to authorize any payments.” They told the court, “The government has taken ‘no meaningful steps’ to comply.”
Chief Justice Roberts, acting alone, granted the administration a brief delay on Wednesday, issuing what’s known as an “administrative stay” suspending the case so both sides could submit written arguments. The Chief Justice handles emergency cases coming from the federal appeals court in Washington, D.C.
Among the groups challenging the freeze are the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, a New York-based organization working to accelerate HIV prevention, and the Global Health Council, based in Washington, D.C., representing other groups managing health programs.
The Trump administration revealed in court filings that it is attempting to rescind more than 90% of USAID’s foreign aid awards. “In total, nearly 5,800 USAID awards were rescinded, and more than 500 USAID awards were withheld,” an administration document stated. “The total cap value of the withheld awards is approximately $57 billion,” the document indicated.
Beyond the rescinding of USAID awards, “approximately 4,100 State Department awards were rescinded, and roughly 2,700 State Department awards were withheld,” the government informed a lower court. Aid programs worldwide have been paralyzed due to the funding freeze and the review of billions of dollars in assistance. This is also because the Trump administration has placed most of USAID’s workforce on furlough or has dismissed them.
Democrats celebrate decision
On Capitol Hill, Democrats said the decision demonstrates that Trump’s power to freeze spending is not limitless. “This money had already been appropriated, things were already in motion, so I think the Supreme Court made the right decision, and now the government needs to unfreeze them and let these contracts and work proceed,” said Congressman Gregory Meeks of New York, the lead Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal called it a “very important decision” from a “Trump-dominated court.” She asserted, “I think it reaffirms… that Congress has the authority to appropriate funds, and people rely on that authorization for these programs, and when you do the work, you should be paid once it’s authorized,” said the Washington State Democrat to CNN.
When asked if she was confident that the payments would be activated, Jayapal said she was not confident about anything, “but I hope that the Trump administration follows the Supreme Court’s ruling.”
