US Supreme Court rejects Donald Trump’s bid to freeze $2 billion in foreign aid
The court upheld a lower court order that directed payments be made for contracts that had been completed.

The United States Supreme Court on Wednesday blocked an attempt by President Donald Trump to freeze nearly $2 billion in payments to foreign aid organisations for contracts that had already been completed, AFP reported.
The Supreme Court voted 5:4 to uphold a lower court order that had directed the resumption of payments for aid contracts with the US Agency for International Development and the US State Department.
USAID is an independent agency that is mainly responsible for administering foreign aid and development assistance on behalf of the US government. Trump had on January 24 imposed a 90-day freeze on money distributed by the agency pending a review by the US State Department.
The freeze has disrupted global aid efforts and halted hundreds of programmes in several countries. The US is the largest humanitarian aid provider in the world and operates in more than 60 countries, mainly through contractors.
In February, District Judge Amir Ali ordered the US State Department and USAID to pay contractors for the work that had already been done by February 26, BBC reported.
The Trump administration had challenged the ruling in the Supreme Court, claiming that it was not possible to process claims in such a short period of time.
On Wednesday, the Supreme Court upheld the lower court’s order. It said that Ali “should clarify what obligations the government must fulfil”.
Conservative Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissenting against the order. But Amy Coney Barrett, who was appointed by Trump in 2020, voted with the three liberal justices.
“Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the government of the United States to pay out [and probably lose forever] 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” BBC quoted Alito as writing in a dissent joined by the three other conservative justices.
“The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘no’, but a majority of this court apparently thinks otherwise,” he added. “I am stunned.”