Supreme Court orders Trump administration to release Frozen Foreign Aid

In a narrow 5-4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday reinstated a lower-court order requiring the Trump administration to release nearly $2 billion in frozen foreign aid a setback for the administration’s effort to cut what it calls wasteful spending.

The ruling leaves in place a temporary restraining order issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who had mandated the immediate release of funds for completed projects. However, the Supreme Court also asked Ali to clarify the government’s obligations and set a feasible timeline for compliance.

Sharp Division Among Justices

The decision saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett both conservatives side with the court’s three liberal justices to form the majority. Meanwhile, Justice Samuel Alito led the dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh.

Alito criticized the ruling as “judicial overreach”, arguing that Ali did not have the authority to order payments and that the decision imposed an unfair financial burden on American taxpayers.

Uncertain Timeline for Fund Release

While the ruling marks a legal victory for nonprofit groups and businesses affected by the aid freeze, they remain uncertain about when the funds will actually be distributed. Some organizations have already suffered financial hardship one group recently laid off 110 employees due to funding delays.

The Supreme Court’s directive means Judge Ali will hold a hearing on Thursday to determine a clearer timeline for compliance.

Trump Administration’s Justification for the Aid Freeze

The Trump administration froze the foreign aid program through an executive order, arguing that tens of billions of dollars in assistance did not align with the president’s foreign policy priorities. The government later revised its approach, canceling 5,800 USAID contracts and 4,100 State Department grants—totaling nearly $60 billion.

The administration maintains that its revised approach replaced the blanket freeze with targeted cancellations, and it has appealed Ali’s ruling, calling it “intrusive and erroneous”.

Legal and Humanitarian Implications

The lawsuit challenging the freeze argues that the aid cuts violate federal law, impacting life-saving humanitarian programs worldwide. Despite Ali’s initial ruling in February to restore funding, the administration delayed compliance, prompting further legal action.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not settle the broader fight over foreign aid policy, but it does require clarity on how and when payments must be made a crucial development for aid organizations waiting for funds to resume their work.