The Supreme Court has ordered the Trump administration to release $1.9 billion in frozen foreign aid payments in a stunning 5-4 decision that saw two conservative-appointed justices side with the liberal wing.
Quick Takes
- Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joined the Court’s liberal justices in the narrow 5-4 ruling against the Trump administration
- Justice Alito issued a scathing dissent, questioning a district court judge’s authority to compel billions in taxpayer payments
- The ruling maintains contracts made prior to the Trump administration’s 90-day freeze on foreign aid
- The administration had argued the payment timeline was “impossible” to comply with after dismantling payment systems
- Critics of the aid freeze warned of security risks and increased corruption in regions dependent on U.S. assistance
Court Delivers Split Decision on Foreign Aid
In a contentious ruling that cuts to the heart of executive authority over federal spending, the Supreme Court has rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to maintain its freeze on nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments. The 5-4 decision saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett break ranks with their fellow conservative-appointed colleagues to side with the Court’s liberal wing, forcing the administration to honor aid commitments made before President Trump returned to office.
The ruling upholds a lower court decision by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, who had previously blocked the administration from canceling foreign aid contracts that were already in place. The administration had instituted a 90-day pause on the disbursement of these funds, citing a need for greater government efficiency, but Judge Ali determined this delay caused “tremendous harm” to the recipient organizations and ordered immediate payment.
Unreal. Supreme Court mandates your salary must be spent this year on transgender dance festivals in Botswana. https://t.co/9UHyvDXxX8
— Mike Benz (@MikeBenzCyber) March 5, 2025
Alito Leads Forceful Dissent
Justice Samuel Alito did not mince words in his blistering dissent, questioning the constitutional basis for the decision. His comments highlight the growing tension between judicial oversight and executive authority in matters of federal spending, particularly when it comes to international commitments made by previous administrations.
“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? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” Alito wrote.
Joining Alito in dissent were Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, all of whom appeared to share concerns about judicial overreach in matters traditionally reserved for executive discretion. The dissenting justices suggested this decision could potentially undermine the Constitutional separation of powers that grants the executive branch significant latitude in foreign policy decisions.
Administrative Challenges Complicate Compliance
The majority opinion acknowledged practical challenges facing the administration, instructing the district court to “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.” This concession came after Justice Department attorneys argued that immediate compliance with the payment order was “impossible” given changes made to USAID’s payment systems.
According to sources familiar with the situation, the Trump administration had dismantled critical payment systems and purged USAID staff, creating administrative hurdles to fulfilling existing contractual obligations. Critics contend these actions were deliberate steps toward the administration’s broader goal of slashing foreign aid spending by approximately $60 billion and cutting about 90% of USAID’s foreign aid contracts.
Broader Implications for Foreign Policy
The ruling comes amid ongoing debates about America’s role on the global stage and the proper use of foreign aid as a tool of diplomatic and strategic influence. Critics of the administration have warned that sudden disruptions to established aid programs could create security vacuums in vulnerable regions and potentially cede influence to rival powers like China, which has aggressively expanded its own foreign aid programs in recent years.
With the case now returned to the district court for clarification on implementation details, the administration faces difficult decisions about how to proceed with its broader foreign aid reform agenda while respecting the Court’s decision. The ruling establishes important precedent regarding the judiciary’s role in enforcing contractual obligations made by the federal government, even when new leadership seeks to change policy direction.
