Supreme Court Forces Trump Team to Return $2B in Aid

Man in a suit with an American flag pin.

The Trump administration must immediately begin paying nearly $2 billion in debts to foreign aid contractors after the Supreme Court rejected the White House’s attempt to maintain a funding freeze that has impacted global humanitarian projects across multiple continents.

Key Takeaways

U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali ordered the Trump administration to expedite payments of nearly $2 billion to USAID and State Department partners by Monday
The Supreme Court rejected the administration’s attempt to maintain the funding freeze in a 5-4 decision
The freeze originated from a January 20 executive order by President Trump which was later replaced with individualized determinations
Plaintiffs argue that contractors were left unpaid for completed work, violating the Administrative Procedure Act
The administration claims payment delays are due to reduced staffing from forced leaves and firings at USAID

Court Orders Immediate Payments Despite Administration Resistance

Following a four-hour hearing, U.S. District Court Judge Amir Ali ordered the Trump administration to expedite payments on nearly $2 billion in foreign aid debts, with the first installments due by Monday. This directive comes after the administration missed a previous February 26 deadline to begin payments. The Justice Department argued the new timeline was “impossible” to meet, but Judge Ali highlighted that the government had already processed over $70 million in similar payments within a short timeframe, suggesting the capability exists to meet this obligation.

The payment crisis affects critical projects across multiple countries including Ukraine, Nigeria, Vietnam, Nepal, Kenya, Uganda, Ghana, and Ethiopia. These programs range from humanitarian aid to infrastructure development that had already been approved and funded by Congressional appropriations. The plaintiffs, including nonprofits like the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Global Health Council, argue that the halt in payments has threatened their ability to continue operations and maintain staff safety in foreign locations.

US judge orders Trump admin to pay portion of $2B in foreign aid by Monday https://t.co/xDklHXOgkz

— Fox News (@FoxNews) March 7, 2025

Supreme Court Ruling Rejects Administration’s Appeal

The Supreme Court delivered a significant blow to the administration’s position in a 5-4 vote, rejecting an emergency application filed by the Justice Department that sought to maintain the funding freeze. While the high court supported Judge Ali’s authority to order the payments, it directed him to clarify specific compliance requirements and consider “the feasibility of any compliance deadlines.” Chief Justice John Roberts had previously issued an administrative stay on the lower court’s ruling before the final decision was reached.

Viewed by Ali as “earth-shaking, country-shaking proposition to say that appropriations are optional,”

The dissenting justices, led by Justice Samuel Alito, expressed concern that the lower court ruling granted “unchecked power to compel the government to pay out … 2 billion taxpayer dollars.” Despite these objections, the majority determined that the administration must proceed with the payments while the full case continues to work through the legal system. The case has drawn significant attention as a test of executive authority over congressionally appropriated funds.

Administration’s Foreign Aid Review and Legal Questions

The funding freeze originated from a January 20 executive order issued by President Trump that mandated a comprehensive review of foreign aid spending. The administration initially implemented a blanket freeze which was later replaced with what officials described as individualized determinations for thousands of contracts and grants. Following this process, many programs were canceled, leading to the current legal challenge from contractors who claim they performed work but never received payment.

“The funding freeze, it’s not continuing. It’s over,” said Indraneel Sur.

A central legal question in the case revolves around whether the administration has the authority to terminate projects that were funded through congressional appropriations. Judge Ali expressed skepticism about this premise during hearings. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs have argued that the administration deliberately dismantled payment systems and purged USAID staff, creating artificial barriers to fulfilling its financial obligations. The administration maintains that any delays are due to logistical challenges rather than unwillingness to comply with the court’s directives.