Supreme Court Orders Release of $2 Billion in Foreign Aid

On March 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court dropped a bombshell with a 5-4 decision that forced the Trump administration to release nearly $2 billion in foreign aid.

This money, previously frozen by an executive order, was meant for contractors working with the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). It’s a ruling that’s got everyone talking, some cheering, others fuming and it’s shining a spotlight on the tug-of-war between the judiciary and the executive branch.

President Donald Trump, back in office and pushing his “America First” agenda, kicked things off on January 20, 2025, with a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid. His goal? To shake up the federal government, cut costs, and realign spending with his priorities.

USAID, which handles about 60% of U.S. foreign assistance (we’re talking $43.79 billion in 2023 alone), was a prime target. The administration started slashing programs left and right, over 90% of USAID contracts were on the chopping block, totaling up to $60 billion in cuts.

But here’s where it gets messy. Contractors and nonprofits who’d already done the work—think HIV prevention in Africa, water pumps in Ukraine, malaria campaigns, weren’t getting paid. They sued, arguing that Trump’s freeze overstepped his authority and messed with Congress’s power to control the purse strings.

Enter U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, appointed by Biden, who issued a temporary restraining order on February 13, saying, “Hold up, you can’t just stop this money from flowing.” When the administration dragged its feet, Ali doubled down on February 25, ordering immediate payment of about $1.9 billion by midnight the next day.

The Trump team raced to the Supreme Court, crying foul. They argued it was impossible to process that much money that fast and that Ali was meddling in executive business. Chief Justice John Roberts hit pause on Ali’s deadline last-minute on February 26, giving the court time to think.

Then, on March 5, the justices came back with their verdict: no dice, Trump. The majority, Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices said the administration had to pay up for work already done, though they sent it back to Ali to clarify the details. The dissenters Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, were livid, with Alito calling it “judicial hubris” and warning of billions lost forever.

This isn’t just about $2 billion, it’s a showdown over who gets to call the shots. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide how taxpayer money gets spent, but presidents have wiggle room to manage it.

Trump’s move to freeze aid, paired with his broader push to gut USAID (with Elon Musk cheering from the sidelines), tests those boundaries. The Supreme Court’s ruling says, “You can’t just ignore contracts for work that’s already happened.” It’s a win for the little guy, the contractors and aid groups who were left hanging and a check on executive overreach.

But it’s not black-and-white. The dissenters have a point: rushing to pay out billions without double-checking for fraud or waste could backfire. And with Trump and Musk hell-bent on shrinking the government, this could be a speed bump, not a roadblock. They’ve already laid off thousands of USAID staff and canceled thousands of programs. The $2 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the $60 billion in cuts they’re eyeing.

Zoom out for a sec. The U.S. is the world’s biggest humanitarian donor, and USAID’s work like delivering food in war zones or meds in pandemics saves lives. Freezing that cash didn’t just hurt contractors; it threw global relief efforts into chaos.

Aid groups warned of “irreversible harm” in places like Nigeria and Georgia, where unpaid bills could mean layoffs or worse think aid workers stuck in conflict zones with no resources. On the flip side, Trump’s camp argues this is about efficiency, cutting “waste” to put America first. It’s a debate that’s as old as politics itself: how much do we owe the world versus ourselves?