In a deeply divided 5–4 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has struck down the Trump administration’s attempt to maintain a freeze on billions of dollars in foreign aid previously approved by Congress. The ruling, issued Wednesday, delivers a significant blow to the White House’s efforts to centralize control over federal spending and highlights growing divisions within the Court over executive power and congressional authority.
The unsigned order did not specify an immediate release of the funds but affirmed that lower courts could compel disbursement if the administration failed to comply with existing directives. Chief Justice John Roberts joined Justices Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the majority, while Justices Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh dissented.
The majority’s brief opinion stated that federal judges must “clarify what obligations the government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order,” effectively instructing lower courts to monitor enforcement.
Justice Alito’s dissent sharply criticized the ruling, writing, “I am stunned by the Court’s decision to permit the lower-court judge to order the administration to unfreeze the foreign aid. A federal court has many tools to address a party’s supposed nonfeasance. Self-aggrandizement of its jurisdiction is not one of them.”
Legal experts described the decision as procedurally narrow but politically significant. Georgetown law professor Steve Vladeck noted that while the order does not force the Trump administration to immediately disburse the funds, it allows lower courts to require payment “if they specify which contracts must be honored.” He added that the conservative dissent “signals how divided the Court remains on matters involving presidential authority.”
The case, expedited through the courts, centers on a January decision by the Trump administration to freeze foreign aid administered by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Officials described the move as part of an effort to align federal spending with the president’s policy agenda. However, advocacy organizations and humanitarian groups argued that the freeze violated Congress’s constitutional power of appropriation and federal law protecting taxpayer-funded programs.
A federal judge previously ordered the administration to resume disbursements, calling the freeze unlawful. When the government allegedly failed to comply, the court issued a stronger directive requiring the full release of funds by a set deadline — prompting the administration’s emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.
Court filings revealed that the administration had already canceled more than 90% of USAID’s active projects, leaving only a fraction of programs operational. The cuts have disrupted international aid initiatives supporting public health, humanitarian relief, and global development.
Democrats in Congress welcomed the Court’s decision as a victory for constitutional balance. “That money had already been appropriated, things were already in motion,” said Rep. Gregory Meeks (D-NY), ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. “The Supreme Court ruled the right way, and now the administration needs to unfreeze the funds so contractors and aid workers can continue their work.”
Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-WA) called it “a very important ruling from a Trump-dominated court,” emphasizing that “Congress has the power to appropriate money, and people rely on that authorization for these programs.”
Though the ruling resolves the immediate dispute, the broader legal battle is far from over. The case will continue in lower courts, where judges must determine how and when the administration must act. The decision also sets the stage for renewed debate over the limits of presidential authority — and how far the executive branch can go in reshaping federal spending without congressional consent.
As both political and legal observers note, Wednesday’s ruling may mark just the beginning of a defining constitutional clash over power, policy, and accountability in Washington.