Supreme Court rules on nearly $2 billion in USAID payments paused by Trump
The Supreme Court recently denied the Trump administration’s request to block a lower court’s order for the administration to pay nearly $2 billion in foreign aid money. This decision provided a near-term reprieve to international aid groups and contractors seeking payment for completed projects. In a one-paragraph ruling, the Court noted that the deadline imposed by the lower court had already passed, and instructed the District Court to clarify the obligations for the Government to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.
Chief Justice John Roberts had previously paused the lower court’s order that required the Trump administration to pay all outstanding invoices to foreign aid groups by a specific deadline. The Justice Department had argued that the timeline was impossible to comply with. The pause prevented aid groups from filing a motion of civil contempt against the administration, which could have expedited the process of reclaiming the unpaid debt.
The dispute revolves around the speed at which the Trump administration needs to pay the $2 billion owed to aid groups and contractors for completed projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The administration had frozen all foreign spending in the name of government efficiency and waste elimination. Acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris argued that the timeline set by the lower court was not feasible and could infringe on the president’s foreign affairs powers.
Plaintiffs dismissed this argument, stating that the Trump administration had failed to take any steps to comply with the lower court’s order to make the payments. They claimed that the administration had dismantled the systems required to send payments to aid groups and had not made any efforts to restart the process. This has led to delays and payment bottlenecks, causing issues with repayment.
Many of the foreign aid groups involved in the lawsuit have already lost the bulk of their funding as part of President Trump’s plan to cut USAID contracts and slash foreign aid spending. Critics warn that this abrupt withdrawal of U.S. investment could lead to economic harm, reputational damage, and new security risks. Scott Greytak from U.S. Transparency International highlighted the potential for increased corruption, fraud, and security threats if U.S. funding is eliminated in certain countries.
The decision by the Supreme Court has implications for the future of U.S. foreign aid and international engagement. As the legal battle continues, the fate of the nearly $2 billion owed to aid groups and contractors remains uncertain. Stay tuned for updates on this developing story.
