The Supreme Court and federal courts have mandated the Trump administration to release portions of a $2 billion foreign-aid freeze, sparking debates over judicial authority versus executive power. Here’s the latest:
###
– : A 5-4 decision on March 5, 2025, rejected the Trump administration’s emergency appeal to block payments, ordering compliance with a lower court’s directive to unfreeze aid for work completed before February 13. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with liberal justices, while conservatives Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
– : U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, overseeing the case, set a for partial payments after the Supreme Court returned the case to his court for clarification. The administration had already processed $70 million in payments overnight between March 5–6, demonstrating capacity to meet timelines.
###
– : Justice Alito denounced the Supreme Court’s decision as “judicial hubris,” arguing it empowers a single judge to override executive foreign-policy decisions. Fox News legal analyst Gregg Jarrett echoed this, accusing Judge Ali of acting as a “super president” by dictating foreign-aid disbursement timelines.
– : The Justice Department argued Judge Ali’s original February 26 deadline was “impossible” and violated “sovereign immunity,” but Ali countered that the government’s rapid $70 million payout proved compliance was feasible.
###
– : President Trump halted payments to review alignment with his foreign policy, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio implementing the pause. Critics allege the freeze targeted programs Trump deemed wasteful or misaligned with U.S. interests.
– : Judge Ali is weighing whether to extend a preliminary injunction against the aid freeze, while the administration claims its case-by-case contract review has already lifted the pause. Plaintiffs argue the review was a “sham” to maintain the freeze.
The case highlights tensions between judicial oversight and executive autonomy, with conservatives framing it as an overreach into presidential authority. Payments continue under court mandate, but further appeals are likely.
