Supreme Court Rejects Trump Administration’s Request to Keep Billions in Foreign Aid Frozen

In a significant decision that underscores the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against the Trump administration’s request to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid frozen. The ruling, which emerged from a divided court, allows lower courts to proceed with enforcing the release of the funds, though it does not explicitly mandate immediate action.

A Deeply Divided Court

The Supreme Court’s ruling was delivered on Wednesday, with a slim 5-4 majority siding against the Trump administration. The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, along with Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. Meanwhile, Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, arguing against the decision.

Although the ruling does not compel the Trump administration to release the funds immediately, it sets the stage for lower courts to push for compliance. The majority opinion suggested that lower courts should clarify the government’s obligations concerning the temporary restraining order that previously directed the administration to unfreeze the aid.

Justice Alito’s Strong Dissent

Justice Samuel Alito expressed strong opposition to the ruling, calling it “stunning.” He criticized the decision, arguing that a federal court should not overstep its authority by enforcing the release of the funds. He further contended that the judiciary has other means to address executive inaction without expanding its jurisdiction beyond traditional boundaries.

Impact on Foreign Aid Programs

The case revolves around billions in foreign aid allocated by the U.S. Congress through the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Earlier this year, the Trump administration froze the funds, citing an effort to cut spending and realign foreign aid with its policy agenda.

However, nonprofit organizations that rely on this funding for global health and humanitarian programs challenged the administration’s move, arguing that it violated congressional authority over government spending. These groups warned that the funding freeze had a “devastating” impact on global efforts to combat disease and instability.

Among the groups affected are the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council. These organizations emphasized that the aid not only supports millions of people worldwide but also serves U.S. interests by preventing the spread of diseases and maintaining global stability.

Legal Battle Moves Through the Courts

On February 13, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued an order requiring the Trump administration to continue disbursing the funds while the case was under review. However, the administration allegedly failed to comply, prompting further legal action. Judge Ali then imposed a strict deadline for the government to release the funds by midnight Wednesday.

With the deadline looming, the Trump administration submitted an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking a temporary pause to delay compliance. The administration argued that it was making “substantial efforts” to process the payments but required additional time to execute the spending effectively.

Chief Justice John Roberts initially granted a temporary administrative stay to allow both sides to submit further arguments. However, the court ultimately ruled against the Trump administration’s request to maintain the freeze.

The Scope of the Funding Freeze

Court documents revealed that the Trump administration sought to terminate over 90% of USAID foreign aid programs. According to filings, nearly 5,800 USAID awards were canceled, while approximately 500 were retained, with a combined value of $57 billion. Similarly, the State Department saw 4,100 awards terminated, leaving only 2,700 intact.

These sweeping cuts have significantly impacted aid programs worldwide, halting crucial initiatives in health, education, and infrastructure development. The move also coincides with the administration’s broader efforts to downsize USAID by placing much of its workforce on leave or terminating their contracts.

Democrats Applaud the Decision

Democratic lawmakers hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a reaffirmation of congressional authority over federal spending. Representative Gregory Meeks, the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, emphasized that the funds had already been allocated and should be used as intended.

“That money had already been appropriated, things were already in action, and so I think the Supreme Court ruled the right way. Now the administration needs to unfreeze them and allow those contractors and the work to be done,” Meeks said.

Similarly, Representative Pramila Jayapal praised the decision as a crucial check on executive power. She highlighted the importance of maintaining congressional oversight in budgetary matters and ensuring that authorized programs receive the funding they were promised.

“I think it reinforces … that Congress has authorization to appropriate money and that people rely on that authorization for those programs. When you do the work, you should get paid when it’s been authorized,” Jayapal stated.

However, she remained cautious about whether the administration would comply with the ruling, expressing skepticism about its willingness to act promptly.

Future Implications

This ruling is just one of several cases challenging the Trump administration’s attempts to consolidate power within the executive branch. Legal analysts, including CNN Supreme Court expert Steve Vladeck, noted that the court’s divide in this case could foreshadow future conflicts over Trump-related legal battles.

“The fact that four justices nevertheless dissented – vigorously – from such a decision is a sign that the Court is going to be divided, perhaps along these exact lines, in many of the more impactful Trump-related cases that are already on their way,” Vladeck commented.

While the Supreme Court’s decision represents a legal victory for those advocating for the release of foreign aid, it remains to be seen how the Trump administration will proceed. With lower courts now empowered to enforce the ruling, the next steps in this ongoing legal battle will determine whether billions of dollars in aid finally reach their intended recipients.