The U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 ruling, rejected the Trump administration’s request to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid frozen. However, the Court did not immediately mandate the release of the funds, allowing the White House to continue contesting the issue in lower courts.
The Supreme Court's order, which was unsigned, cleared the way for the lower courts to enforce the release of the frozen foreign aid. The majority included Chief Justice John Roberts, Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
However, four conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—dissented strongly. Alito, in particular, expressed his shock at the decision, arguing that the court was overstepping its role by allowing lower-court judges to dictate actions for the administration.
The case centers around a significant freeze on foreign aid, which the Trump administration implemented in January 2024. The funding freeze impacted billions of dollars managed by the U.S. State Department and USAID. This freeze was part of the administration’s effort to curb spending and bring foreign aid in line with its political agenda.
Several nonprofit groups that depend on this funding, particularly for global health programs, sued the administration. They argued that the freeze violated federal law and undermined Congress’s power over government spending.
The nonprofit groups challenging the freeze—such as the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council—highlighted the devastating impact the funding cuts would have on critical global health initiatives. These programs support disease prevention, including HIV/AIDS, and help stabilize regions abroad before issues escalate to the U.S.
The plaintiffs argued that the freeze had already caused severe disruptions in international health programs and put lives at risk.
In his dissent, Justice Alito criticized the Court’s decision and expressed his belief that it was improper for the judiciary to involve itself in executive decisions about foreign aid. He described the ruling as an unnecessary expansion of judicial power.
Despite the 5-4 split, legal analysts, including CNN’s Steve Vladeck, called the Court’s order “extremely modest.” Vladeck noted that the ruling did not immediately require the release of the funds but merely opened the door for lower courts to further clarify the specifics of the case.
In response to the legal challenges, the Trump administration argued that it had made substantial efforts to review and approve payment requests but could not meet the deadline set by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who had ordered the release of the funds. The administration claimed that it was still working to bring the aid programs back online.
The government also revealed that it was attempting to terminate over 90% of USAID foreign aid awards, drastically reducing its funding obligations.
The Trump administration’s freeze has caused significant disruptions in foreign aid programs worldwide. Aid programs in sectors like global health have ground to a halt, leaving millions of people without essential resources. The freeze has affected over 5,000 USAID awards, with nearly $57 billion in retained awards, highlighting the broad scale of the cuts.
The Supreme Court’s ruling does not end the legal battle. Lower courts will now have to decide how to enforce the temporary restraining order and determine the specific obligations the Trump administration must meet to comply. As this case progresses, the future of U.S. foreign aid remains uncertain, with significant implications for global health and development programs.
This ruling marks another chapter in the ongoing battle over executive authority, judicial oversight, and the U.S. government’s role in international aid.
