In a razor-thin 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration must unfreeze up to $2 billion in foreign aid funding, but left lingering questions by instructing a Washington, D.C., judge to clarify the exact obligations of the government. The ruling injects new urgency into a legal battle over executive power and government spending while leaving room for further legal maneuvering.
A Contentious Verdict: Foreign Aid on the Line
The Supreme Court denied the administration’s emergency request to overturn a lower court’s order that mandated the government pay U.S. State Department and USAID contractors for work completed before February 13.
With the fate of billions at stake, the justices remained divided. Conservative stalwarts Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, warning against a single district judge wielding unchecked authority to force a multi-billion-dollar payout of taxpayer money.
Trump’s Foreign Aid Freeze Sparks Legal Battle
President Donald Trump, in a move that shook the international aid community, ordered an immediate halt to all foreign aid spending on his first day back in the White House. His executive order, titled Re-evaluating and Re-aligning United States Foreign Aid, set a 90-day review to assess the continuation of thousands of State Department and USAID contracts. Since then, the administration has announced plans to slash roughly 75% of existing grants and contracts—eliminating nearly 10,000 of 13,100 agreements, according to court records.
The Legal Clash: Who Controls the Purse Strings?
A coalition of contractors and advocacy groups, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council, pushed back, arguing that the freeze was an unconstitutional overreach violating separation of powers and the Administrative Procedure Act.
