On March 5, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a 5-4 decision, ordered the Trump administration to release approximately $2 billion in U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) funds, rejecting an emergency bid to maintain a freeze on payments. This ruling upholds a lower court order by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, compelling the administration to compensate contractors and grant recipients for work completed before February 13, 2025. The decision marks a significant clash between judicial oversight and executive authority, with stark contrasts in payment approaches and a fiery dissent from Justice Samuel Alito.
Contrasting Payment Methods and Recipients
The Trump administration sought to overhaul USAID’s funding structure following a January 20, 2025, executive order imposing a 90-day foreign aid pause to align with an “America First” policy. Under this plan, payments would undergo a meticulous review, terminating over 90% of USAID’s 5,800 awards—worth billions—while preserving only select programs like food aid and HIV treatment. This selective payout targeted critical recipients but left most contractors, including nonprofits like the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and businesses upgrading water systems in Ukraine, unpaid for prior work.
In contrast, the Supreme Court’s ruling mandates immediate disbursement of the $2 billion for pre-existing obligations, bypassing the administration’s review. This ensures payment to a broader pool—contractors and grantees who completed work before the freeze—without discrimination based on policy alignment. The decision prioritizes legal commitments over executive discretion, affecting diverse recipients from global health organizations to infrastructure firms.
Justices’ Reasoning Against Trump
The majority—Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices—focused on the administration’s failure to challenge the initial February 13 temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the funding halt. By only contesting Judge Ali’s February 25 enforcement deadline (which passed on February 26), the government implicitly accepted its obligation to pay for completed work. The Justices argued that upholding the TRO’s intent prevented irreparable harm to contractors facing financial ruin, emphasizing judicial authority to enforce lawful obligations over executive overreach in foreign affairs.
Payment Timeline
The original deadline of February 26, 2025, set by Judge Ali, proved unfeasible, as the administration argued it needed “weeks” to process payments due to complex USAID systems. The Supreme Court’s order sidesteps this expired deadline, remanding the case to the district court to establish a new, practical timeline. This flexibility acknowledges logistical challenges while ensuring compliance, though no specific duration is yet defined, leaving it to ongoing lower court proceedings.
Alito’s Dissent
Justice Alito, joined by Justices Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh, lambasted the ruling as a “most unfortunate misstep.” He argued that a single district judge lacked jurisdiction to force the government to pay $2 billion, potentially unrecoverable once disbursed, calling it an “act of judicial hubris.” Alito contended his colleagues rewarded overreach, imposing an unjust taxpayer burden and undermining executive power. “I am stunned,” he wrote, signaling deep ideological divides on the Court.
This ruling underscores tensions between branches of government, with immediate implications for USAID’s global operations and broader debates over presidential authority.
