Supreme Court Rejects Trump’s Foreign Aid Freeze, Allowing Lower Courts to Act
In a closely contested 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled against the Trump administration’s attempt to freeze billions in foreign aid that had already been approved by Congress. The ruling, issued on Wednesday, denies the administration’s emergency request to keep the funds frozen but does not immediately order their release, leaving further legal battles to the lower courts.
A Divided Court’s Decision
The unsigned order was supported by five justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson. The four conservative justices who dissented were Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.
With a court-ordered deadline for spending the funds already missed, the majority opinion emphasized the need for lower courts to clarify the government’s obligations regarding the temporary restraining order.
Justice Alito, in a strongly worded dissent, expressed his “stunned” reaction to the ruling, arguing that it improperly expanded judicial authority. He criticized the lower court’s intervention, stating:
“A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.”
The Legal Battle Over Billions in Foreign Aid
At the center of the case is billions of dollars in foreign aid allocated by Congress to the U.S. State Department and USAID. In January, the Trump administration froze these funds as part of a broader effort to rein in government spending and align foreign aid with its policy agenda.
Several nonprofit organizations that rely on this funding for global health, humanitarian aid, and development projects challenged the freeze, arguing that it violated Congress’ constitutional power over federal spending. The organizations claimed that the aid is vital, saving millions of lives and supporting U.S. interests abroad.
A U.S. District Court judge, Amir Ali, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs on February 13, temporarily ordering the administration to continue funding while the case proceeded. When the administration failed to comply, Ali imposed a strict midnight deadline for payments to resume.
The Trump administration quickly appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that it was making “substantial efforts” to process payments but could not meet Ali’s timeline. The administration contended that only a small number of political appointees were holding up the funding, but plaintiffs dismissed this claim, insisting that the government had taken no meaningful steps toward compliance.
The Impact of the Aid Freeze
The freeze has had far-reaching consequences, halting vital aid programs worldwide and disrupting funding for initiatives related to global health, education, and economic development.
According to court documents, the administration has attempted to terminate over 90% of USAID’s foreign aid awards, affecting nearly 5,800 grants. The State Department also canceled more than 4,100 awards, retaining only about 2,700.
Among the organizations affected by the freeze are the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, which focuses on accelerating HIV prevention, and the Global Health Council, a Washington, D.C.-based coalition supporting health initiatives worldwide.
These groups argue that foreign aid is not just a humanitarian necessity but also a strategic investment in global stability and disease prevention. Their court filings highlight how aid funding:
- Strengthens U.S. diplomatic and economic interests abroad
- Helps prevent global crises from reaching American shores
- Provides life-saving assistance to millions worldwide
Political Reactions and Future Implications
On Capitol Hill, Democrats hailed the ruling as a victory for Congressional authority. Representative Gregory Meeks (D-NY), the ranking Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, emphasized that the Supreme Court’s decision reaffirms that the president cannot unilaterally freeze appropriated funds.
“That money had already been appropriated, things were already in action, and so I think the Supreme Court ruled the right way,” Meeks said.
Representative Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) called it “a very important ruling”, noting that even with a conservative-leaning court, the decision underscores Congress’ control over federal spending.
Despite the ruling, there remains uncertainty over whether the Trump administration will fully comply. When asked whether she was confident that the funds would be released, Jayapal expressed skepticism:
“I’m not confident about anything, but I hope that the Trump administration will pay attention to the Supreme Court.”
The Bigger Picture
The case is part of a broader legal battle over presidential authority, particularly regarding Trump’s efforts to centralize executive power and reshape federal agencies. It marks the second time in recent months that the Supreme Court has reviewed Trump’s actions to consolidate control over foreign policy and government spending.
Legal analysts, including CNN Supreme Court expert Steve Vladeck, describe the ruling as “extremely modest” but indicative of deeper divisions within the court.
“The unsigned order does not actually require the Trump administration to immediately release the aid,” Vladeck explained. “But the fact that four justices vigorously dissented signals a potential ideological divide in future Trump-related cases.”
What’s Next?
With the Supreme Court’s decision leaving room for lower courts to enforce compliance, the Biden-appointed Judge Ali may still compel the administration to release the funds. However, given the Trump administration’s resistance, further legal wrangling is expected.
Meanwhile, the aid freeze continues to disrupt critical humanitarian and global development programs, leaving millions dependent on U.S. assistance in limbo.
The ruling is also likely to set a precedent for how courts handle executive branch attempts to circumvent Congressional spending authority, making it a crucial moment in the ongoing debate over separation of powers.