Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Maintain Foreign Aid Freeze

On Friday, the Supreme Court decided to let the Trump administration keep a significant freeze on foreign aid, which is set to end next week.

This emergency measure prompted the administration to overturn a lower court’s ruling, which had initially mandated the spending of approved aid funds by September 30th.

The suspension extends the injunction from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, introduced earlier this month, with Secretary John Roberts taking responsibility for emergency appeals as the High Court reviews the case.

In an unsigned ruling, the court noted that the government had sufficiently shown “at this early stage” that this situation fell under the Water Storage Control Act, meaning the plaintiffs couldn’t compel the government to allocate funds.

Furthermore, the court indicated that any alleged damage to Trump’s foreign policy was likely more significant than the potential issues faced by the respondents.

“This order should not be interpreted as a final decision regarding merit,” the order stated. “What the court granted today reflects our initial views, aligned with the standards for provisional relief.”

Justice Elena Kagan dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Attorney General D. John Sauer argued that implementing Ali’s restraint would pressure the administration to dispense funds rapidly, even if Trump suggested pulling back aid from Congress.

This presidential strategy, referred to as “the withdrawal of the pocket,” is somewhat ambiguous and aims to circumvent spending by asking Congress to cut budgets later in the fiscal year. Essentially, this means lawmakers have a 45-day window to respond to such requests, which can lead to budget reductions before year-end, resulting in funds no longer being available if not acted upon.

Roberts’ temporary order was put on hold because it involved funds related to Ali’s proposal to Congress made on August 28th.

Global Health and Aid Group contested Trump’s attempts to freeze funds, arguing that such actions impede Congressional decisions regarding government payments.

According to the plaintiffs, “the government’s emergency is an obligation to spend funds allocated for specific purposes, at least since March 2024.” They cited this in response to the government’s emergency application.

Trump initially suspended around $30 billion in foreign aid shortly after returning to the White House and prompted the group to file a lawsuit.

Among this, around $10.5 billion is set to expire on September 30, although the government intended to allocate $6.5 billion of those funds by the deadline, leaving roughly $4 billion unspent.

Sauer remarked, “The president cannot maintain a unified stance in diplomacy or Congressional dealings when district courts compel administrative agencies to defend their own objectives.” He expressed this in the government’s request for a stay.

This situation adds yet another layer to the complex legal saga surrounding Trump’s attempts to cut foreign aid.

The plaintiffs initiated their lawsuit in February, and the case made its way to the Supreme Court in March, where the judge dismissed Trump’s request to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments in a 5-4 decision.

Last month, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit found that the challengers lacked the standing to sue, controlled by Ali, and mandated billions to be allocated for aid programs.

This ruling was later adjusted, allowing the plaintiffs to seek a temporary injunction on a different legal basis. Ali subsequently granted a new preliminary injunction, which is the focus of this appeal.

The Trump administration’s appeal against the ruling in favor of the plaintiffs resulted in a 2-1 decision from the Court of Appeal, prompting an emergency application for intervention. Roberts issued a stay earlier this month.