In a 5–4 decision on March 5, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s request to block the release of $2 billion in foreign aid.
The ruling upholds a lower court’s order requiring the government to make the payments, dealing a setback to the administration’s attempt to freeze foreign assistance programs under an executive order signed by President Donald Trump on January 20.
The ruling comes after a temporary pause granted by Chief Justice John Roberts on February 26, which had given the administration a brief reprieve from complying with the lower court’s directive. However, Roberts ultimately joined Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Ketanji Brown Jackson, Elena Kagan, and Sonia Sotomayor in rejecting the administration’s emergency request, allowing the payments to proceed.
The case stems from an executive order issued by President Trump directing an immediate freeze on thousands of congressionally funded foreign-aid projects. The administration argued that this was necessary to reassess U.S. foreign spending and ensure taxpayer dollars were being used effectively. However, several organizations, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, challenged the freeze, arguing that it was an unconstitutional overreach of presidential power and a violation of congressional intent.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali issued a temporary restraining order last month compelling the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department to restore funding for contracts that had been in place before January 20. The plaintiffs in the case contended that the administration was slow to act, prompting Judge Ali to escalate the matter and order immediate payment.
In an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the administration was given an unreasonable timeframe—just 30 hours—to comply with the judge’s ruling. She warned that the abrupt order had thrown government operations into “chaos” and exposed officials to the risk of contempt proceedings and other legal consequences.
The court’s ruling sparked strong opposition from the four dissenting justices, all of whom were appointed by Republican presidents. Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, issued a scathing dissent, criticizing the majority for allowing what he described as 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 taxpayer dollars?” Alito wrote. “The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned.”
Alito further warned that the decision set a dangerous precedent, allowing federal courts to dictate government spending in ways that could undermine executive authority.
The ruling is seen as a victory for organizations that rely on U.S. foreign aid, with advocates arguing that the funding supports critical humanitarian and public health initiatives worldwide.
Lauren Bateman, lead attorney for the plaintiffs, welcomed the decision, stating that the ruling “confirms that the Administration cannot ignore the law” and calling it a necessary step to “stop needless suffering and death.”
However, critics argue that the decision forces the government to distribute taxpayer funds in a way that undermines the administration’s policy goals. The Trump administration has long been critical of excessive foreign aid spending, contending that such funds should be used to address domestic priorities rather than international projects.
While the Supreme Court’s ruling resolves the immediate legal dispute, the broader question of executive power over foreign aid remains contentious. The administration may explore additional legal avenues or policy measures to challenge the forced distribution of the funds.
For now, the $2 billion in foreign aid will be released, but the fight over how and where U.S. taxpayer dollars are spent is far from over.