Trump admin asks SCOTUS to continue freeze on billions in USAID payments

Trump Administration Appeals to Supreme Court to Halt Injunction on USAID Funding

Lawyers representing the Trump administration have filed an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court in an effort to stop a lower court injunction that would freeze billions in foreign aid spending allocated by Congress. This marks the second time in six months that the issue of USAID funding has been brought before the high court.

At the center of the dispute is nearly $12 billion in funding earmarked for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with a deadline for allocation by the end of the fiscal year in September. President Donald Trump had initially cut most of these funds shortly after taking office, citing a need to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse in foreign aid spending.

The U.S. Solicitor General, D. John Sauer, argued in the emergency filing that without intervention from the Supreme Court, the administration would be compelled to quickly allocate the $12 billion in foreign aid funds by September 30.

Legal Battles Over USAID Funding

These payments have been tied up in court for months following an executive order signed by President Trump in January to halt foreign aid spending. A federal judge in D.C. had ordered the administration to resume payments for USAID projects approved by Congress, but this decision was overturned by the U.S. District Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

The appeals court ruled 2-1 to vacate the lower court injunction, stating that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that President Trump exceeded his executive branch authorities in withholding the funds. However, the court has not yet issued a mandate to enforce this ruling, leaving the payment schedule intact for now.

Supreme Court Appeal and Legal Arguments

In the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, Sauer argued that the foreign aid groups suing the administration have no legal standing to challenge the executive branch on this matter, as it falls under the jurisdiction of the Impoundment Control Act. The plaintiffs have countered that the administration lacks the authority to unilaterally withhold appropriated funds, citing both the Impoundment Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act.

The Supreme Court previously ruled 5-4 in a related case, underscoring the significance of this latest legal battle over USAID funding.