The Trump administration received a temporary win on Wednesday night when the United States Supreme Court permitted it to withhold over $1.5 billion in foreign aid payments that had already been approved. Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. issued this decision in response to an emergency request from government lawyers.
A district court judge had earlier instructed both the U.S. Agency for International Development and the State Department to release the funds by midnight. This money had been frozen following the president’s immediate move on his first day in office to slash overseas aid.
RelatedPosts
The administration argued before the Supreme Court that the lower court judge had exceeded his powers by getting in the way of decisions that should be made by the president regarding foreign aid spending.
Chief Justice Roberts responded with a procedural step called an “administrative stay,” which keeps things unchanged until the justices can assess the issue more fully. He gave the opposing side until Friday to reply, and the full court is expected to weigh in shortly afterward.
Although the court’s ruling is temporary, it marks the administration’s initial win in a series of legal battles expected to reach the Supreme Court, all related to the president’s executive actions.
Massive Contract Cancellations Shake Aid Sector
Later on Wednesday, the administration’s lawyers disclosed that the government had decided to terminate close to 10,000 contracts and grants linked to foreign aid. These actions included both USAID and State Department agreements.
This news shocked people already concerned about the recent removal of many staff members at USAID, which supports global efforts related to food security, health care, democracy, and economic development.
A former top official at the agency explained that nearly 90 percent of its operations were being shut down, representing tens of billions in spending.
According to a document shared by a coalition of workers and partners on Wednesday night, the decision would have devastating effects. The statement described the action as something that could potentially bankrupt numerous implementing partners and permanently end many life-saving initiatives.
Officials involved in the aid programs also mentioned that even parts of the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) had been cut. These areas were previously considered critical and were meant to be protected from the aid freeze.
Lifesaving Work Also Targeted
Among the agreements that were canceled were those tied to emergency response teams based in states like Virginia and California. These teams assist in natural disasters such as earthquakes, like the one that hit Turkey and Syria two years ago.
Although those programs had earlier been excluded from cuts through a humanitarian waiver by Secretary of State Marco Rubio, they too were now being affected.
In an official filing, the administration outlined how these sweeping cuts relate to an earlier court order from February 13. Judge Amir H. Ali had stated that funds already promised should be released to contractors and grantees working on foreign aid projects that support U.S. interests around the globe.
President Trump and his senior advisers have argued that foreign aid programs have become wasteful and disconnected from what America truly needs.
Yet critics have voiced deep concern over these actions. Liz Schrayer, president of the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, issued a statement warning that cutting foreign aid in this way would severely harm U.S. influence and undermine its ability to succeed abroad.
Legal and Administrative Tensions Deepen
Wednesday’s events were part of a larger legal standoff between the courts and the administration. While officials claim to be meeting legal requirements, they are also actively looking for legal routes to avoid or delay compliance.
Following a presidential directive in January, nearly all foreign aid spending was halted for 90 days. This decision prompted lawsuits from several aid organizations, which claimed that the freeze endangered the missions they carry out and threatened millions of lives.
On February 13, Judge Ali ordered that any funding connected to aid contracts or agreements that existed before the president took office must be released. Despite this, many organizations reported that the funding remained blocked.
During a recent hearing, lawyers representing aid groups told the judge that they saw no signs the government had resumed payments.
The administration’s representatives responded that they had reviewed each program individually and concluded that most would be canceled, meaning the court’s instructions had technically been followed.
Efforts to Cancel Funding Intensify
According to the government’s legal brief, USAID was actively sending out cancellation notices and aimed to finish the process within two days. Officials insisted that no remaining grants or contracts were still frozen.
The administration reported that around 3,200 grants and contracts would continue, and they were committed to proceeding with those agreements.
Judge Ali, during a court session, asked government lawyers to show proof that aid money had started flowing since his order. They could not present such evidence, which led the judge to issue another deadline, demanding payment for all outstanding invoices due before the February 13 ruling.
Pete Marocco, appointed by Trump to lead foreign aid efforts, explained that the delay in payments was partly due to administrative challenges.
He said USAID was facing $1.5 billion in unpaid requests, while the State Department had another $400 million still pending. He emphasized that these payments required time and could not be processed instantly.
Lawsuits Reveal Deeper Frustrations
On the same day, the groups that took legal action against the administration submitted more court documents. These filings contained several complaints about the government’s slow handling of the aid disbursement.
Lawyers representing those groups said that officials had added extra steps to the funding process. Each payment, including for work already completed and approved, now needed a detailed policy justification.
Aid workers submitted sworn statements describing the harmful consequences of the funding freeze. One worker mentioned they could not provide HIV medicine to patients overseas because U.S. funding had not been delivered in time.
Although the State Department had issued a PEPFAR waiver, statements filed in court showed that related payments still had not been made.
Humanitarian Impact Sparks Outcry
Several individuals supported the plaintiffs’ case with declarations describing the real-world damage. One said children would miss meals designed to combat malnutrition, while pregnant and nursing mothers would no longer be screened for hunger. Others reported that refugee families would lose access to food vouchers.
The government responded by claiming that Judge Ali’s new deadline was too demanding. Restarting aid programs, they argued, was not a simple task. It required time, coordination, and more resources.
Attorneys for the aid groups asked the court for permission to question Mr. Marocco and Secretary Rubio in court. According to their filing, government lawyers had said they would oppose efforts to force Mr. Rubio to testify, based on a legal doctrine that shields high-ranking officials from being required to appear unless necessary.
But the plaintiffs’ legal team pointed out that Mr. Rubio was directly involved in decisions about foreign aid, which made his testimony necessary for the case.
