In a landmark decision on March 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 that the Trump administration must unfreeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid funds that had been withheld since January. This ruling underscores the judiciary’s role in enforcing legislative authority over federal spending.
Background
Upon taking office in January 2025, President Trump initiated a 90-day review of foreign aid allocations to align with his “America First” agenda. This review led to the suspension of over 90% of the U.S. Agency for International Development’s (USAID) foreign aid contracts, affecting critical programs worldwide.
Humanitarian organizations challenged this freeze, arguing that it violated federal law and disrupted essential services. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled on February 13 that the administration must continue payments for completed work. Despite this order, payments remained largely withheld, prompting further legal action.
Supreme Court Proceedings
The administration’s appeal reached the Supreme Court swiftly. Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay on February 26, pausing Judge Ali’s order to allow the Court time to consider the administration’s request to block the payment mandate.
On March 5, the Court denied the administration’s request, effectively upholding the lower court’s order to release the funds. The justices instructed Judge Ali to determine the specifics of the payments, considering the feasibility of compliance.
Judicial Dynamics
The decision revealed unexpected alignments within the Court. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett, both appointed by Republican presidents, sided with the liberal justices in favor of unfreezing the funds. This outcome led to criticism from right-wing figures, who accused Barrett of betraying conservative principles.
Impact on Humanitarian Efforts
The funding freeze had severely disrupted global aid operations, jeopardizing programs in maternal health, emergency food assistance, and disease prevention. Humanitarian groups expressed relief at the Court’s decision but continued to face uncertainties regarding the timing and full restoration of funds.
Political Reactions
The administration’s handling of foreign aid funding became a focal point in political discourse. Critics argued that the freeze undermined U.S. commitments abroad and harmed vulnerable populations. Supporters contended that the review was necessary to ensure aid aligned with national interests.
Looking Ahead
The Supreme Court’s ruling reinforces the principle that executive actions must adhere to legislative directives regarding federal spending. As Judge Ali oversees the implementation of the payment order, stakeholders await clarity on the restoration of aid and its impact on global humanitarian efforts.
