Supreme Court orders Trump to release $2 billion in foreign aid payments

The Supreme Court left in place a lower court’s decision to pause the Trump administration’s spending freeze. The administration had appealed U.S. District Judge Amir Ali’s deadline to give the federal government until Feb. 26 to pay out $2 billion in aid.

|
Jon Elswick/AP/File
The Supreme Court at sunset in Washington, Feb. 13, 2016. The Supreme Court has twice sided with lower-court judges in legal fights over actions taken by Mr. Trump in his second term in office.

A sharply divided Supreme Court on March 5 rejected a Trump administration push to rebuke a federal judge who imposed a quick deadline to release billions of dollars in foreign aid.

By a 5-4 vote, the court told U.S. District Judge Amir Ali to clarify his earlier order that required the Republican administration to release nearly $2 billion in aid for work that had already been done.

Although the outcome is a short-term loss for President Donald Trump’s administration, the nonprofit groups and businesses that sued are still waiting for the money they say they are owed. One of the organizations last week was forced to lay off 110 employees as a result, according to court papers.

It’s the second time the new administration has sought and failed to persuade the Supreme Court to immediately rein in a lower-court judge in legal fights over actions taken by Mr. Trump.

Justice Samuel Alito led four conservative justices in dissent, saying Justice Ali lacks the authority to order the payments. Justice Alito wrote that he is stunned the court is rewarding “an act of judicial hubris and imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers.”

The court’s action leaves in place Justice Ali’s temporary restraining order that had paused the spending freeze. Justice Ali is holding a hearing March 6 to consider a more lasting pause.

The majority noted that the administration had not challenged Justice Ali’s initial order, only the deadline, which in any event passed last week.

The court told Justice Ali 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.”

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, two conservatives, joined the three liberal justices to form a majority.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh joined Justice Alito’s dissent.

The Trump administration has argued that the situation has changed because it has replaced a blanket spending freeze with individualized determinations that led to the cancellation of 5,800 U.S. Agency for International Development contracts and another 4,100 State Department grants totaling nearly $60 billion in aid.

The federal government froze foreign aid after an executive order from Mr. Trump targeting what he called wasteful programs that do not correspond to his foreign policy goals.

The lawsuit that followed claimed that the pause breaks federal law and has shut down funding for even the most urgent life-saving programs abroad.

Justice Ali ordered the funding temporarily restored on Feb. 13, but nearly two weeks later he found the government was giving no sign of complying and set a deadline to release payment for work already completed.

The administration appealed, calling Justice Ali’s order “incredibly intrusive and profoundly erroneous” and protesting the timeline to release the money.

This story was reported by The Associated Press.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Give us your feedback

We want to hear, did we miss an angle we should have covered? Should we come back to this topic? Or just give us a rating for this story. We want to hear from you.

 

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Supreme Court orders Trump to release $2 billion in foreign aid payments
Read this article in
https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2025/0305/Trump-Supreme-Court-foreign-aid-USAID
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today
https://www.csmonitor.com/subscribe