In a significant legal blow to the Trump administration, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 5-4 on Wednesday, February 5, 2025, that the federal government must immediately disburse approximately $2 billion in frozen foreign assistance funds.
The ruling upholds a lower court’s temporary restraining order against the administration’s 90-day pause on foreign development aid, marking a major setback for Trump’s unilateral policy decisions.
High Court Rejects Trump’s Freeze on Foreign Aid
The case, brought by the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Journalism Development Network, challenged the Trump administration’s decision to suspend foreign aid programs under the pretense of reviewing their alignment with U.S. foreign policy objectives. The plaintiffs argued that the freeze had devastating humanitarian consequences and was implemented without proper legal justification.
District Judge Amir Ali, who initially issued the temporary restraining order, found that the aid suspension was “likely arbitrary and capricious given the apparent failure to consider immense reliance interests.” The Supreme Court’s ruling affirms this finding, effectively forcing the administration to reinstate the funds.
Divided Court, Strong Dissent
The Court’s decision was met with sharp dissent from Justice Samuel Alito, who accused the majority of engaging in “an act of judicial hubris.” Writing for the dissent, Alito argued that while the district judge’s order was technically temporary, its practical effect was to permanently disburse funds that the government could not later reclaim.
Additionally, the dissent contended that the administration’s position—asserting sovereign immunity from compensatory relief—was a debatable legal question that should have warranted a stay. Alito also criticized the scope of relief, arguing that the government should have been ordered to disburse only the portion of funds owed specifically to the plaintiffs rather than the entire $2 billion.
Humanitarian and Diplomatic Fallout
The Trump administration’s freeze had already caused significant disruptions to global humanitarian efforts. Several United Nations agencies and international non-governmental organizations (NGOs) were forced to suspend critical operations due to funding shortages. Among the impacted programs were:
- Refugee camps and hospitals in Myanmar
- The Norwegian Refugee Council’s U.S.-funded humanitarian network in over 20 countries
- The UN Population Fund’s initiatives to protect women in Afghanistan and Ukraine
- The UN World Food Program’s office closure in southern Africa
- North Korean human rights organizations, which now face imminent closure due to financial constraints
Judge Ali had emphasized that the foreign aid suspension posed a “catastrophic effect” on these essential services, further strengthening the plaintiffs’ claims.
Potential Congressional Backlash
In a related political development, U.S. Congressman Andy Ogles (R-TN) has signaled possible impeachment proceedings against Judge Ali for his decision to lift the aid freeze. While such efforts may be politically motivated, they underscore the broader tensions between Trump’s executive authority and the judiciary’s role in checking presidential power.
A Broader Pattern of Executive Overreach?
The Supreme Court’s ruling adds to a growing list of legal setbacks for Trump, particularly concerning his attempts to bypass congressional authority. Legal experts note that his administration has repeatedly tested the limits of executive power, including:
- Trade Tariffs: Trump imposed sweeping tariffs on imports from Canada, Mexico, and China without explicit congressional approval, raising constitutional concerns.
- Border Wall Funding: Courts previously ruled against Trump’s reallocation of Pentagon funds to build a border wall, finding that it circumvented Congress’s spending authority.
- Immigration Policies: Federal courts blocked several Trump-era immigration orders, including the controversial travel ban and restrictions on asylum claims.
With the Supreme Court’s latest ruling, legal scholars argue that Trump’s foreign aid freeze represents yet another example of the administration overstepping its constitutional boundaries.
The Supreme Court’s decision marks a decisive setback for Trump’s legal strategy, reaffirming that the executive branch cannot unilaterally freeze congressionally approved funds without due process.
As the administration scrambles to comply with the ruling, the broader implications of Trump’s executive overreach continue to unfold, potentially shaping the legal battles ahead.
