The Supreme Court issued a 5-4 ruling forcing the Trump administration to release $1.9 billion in frozen foreign aid payments, with Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joining liberal justices in a decision that has sparked strong objections from Justice Alito and other conservative justices.
Key Takeaways
- The Supreme Court, in a narrow 5-4 decision, ordered the Trump administration to immediately unfreeze and disburse $1.9 billion in foreign aid payments.
- Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court’s three liberal justices, while Justices Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh dissented.
- Justice Alito issued a scathing dissent, questioning whether a single district court judge should have the power to force the government to spend billions in taxpayer dollars.
- The ruling maintains lower court orders issued by Biden-appointed Judge Amir Ali, who had previously blocked the Trump administration’s 90-day pause on foreign aid contracts.
- The case returns to district court for clarification on specific payment obligations and timelines for the administration.
Supreme Court’s Narrow Decision Forces Release of Foreign Aid
In a contentious 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court has denied the Trump administration’s request to block a lower court order requiring the release of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments. The decision was unusual in its makeup, with conservative-appointed Justices John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett joining the court’s three liberal justices to form the majority. The ruling effectively maintains a district court judge’s order requiring the government to honor foreign aid agreements made before Trump returned to office.
The Supreme Court’s decision comes after the Trump administration implemented what it described as an efficiency-focused freeze on foreign spending. This pause, initially set for 90 days, affected contracts through the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The court’s ruling sends the case back to 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.”
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
Justice Alito’s Powerful Dissent
Justice Samuel Alito issued a forceful dissent to the ruling, expressing shock at the court’s decision to allow a single district court judge to compel the executive branch to disperse such large amounts of taxpayer money. Alito questioned the fundamental separation of powers between branches of government, highlighting what he views as dangerous judicial overreach into executive authority.
“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.
Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Alito in his dissent. Their opposition underscores growing concerns among some conservatives about judicial interference with executive branch authorities, particularly regarding spending powers and foreign policy decisions traditionally reserved for the president.
Lower Court Battle and Administration Response
The legal battle began when U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, blocked the Trump administration from canceling foreign aid contracts. Judge Ali claimed the 90-day pause on payments caused “tremendous harm” and demanded the administration disburse the funds by a specific deadline. Chief Justice Roberts had temporarily paused this lower court decision before the final ruling.
Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued before the Court that the payment order could violate executive branch authorities, while plaintiffs countered that the administration had deliberately dismantled payment systems and purged USAID staff to create obstacles to compliance.
Broader Implications for Foreign Policy
Despite this legal setback, the Trump administration continues to pursue its broader agenda of substantially reducing foreign aid. Plans remain in place to cut approximately 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts and slash $60 billion in overall foreign aid spending. Critics of the administration’s foreign aid freeze have warned of potential economic harm, reputational damage, and security risks. Scott Greytak of U.S. Transparency International highlighted concerns about increased corruption abroad and growing competition from China in regions where American aid might be reduced.
The Supreme Court’s ruling represents a significant setback for the administration’s efforts to reshape America’s foreign aid priorities. The case will now return to the district court for further proceedings to determine exactly how and when the administration must comply with the order to release funds. This dispute highlights the ongoing tension between the judiciary and executive branches regarding control over government spending, particularly in foreign policy matters.
