US judge orders Trump admin to pay portion of $2B in foreign aid by Monday

A JudgeOrders Immediate Payment of Owed Foreign Aid to Trump Administration

A U.S. district court judge on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to pay at least a portion of the nearly $2 billion in owed foreign aid for previously completed projects by 6 p.m. Monday. This expedited ruling follows a Supreme Court decision just one day earlier, which rejected the Trump administration’s request to continue freezing the payments. Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia made the decision after a lengthy and intense court hearing where he pressed both sides on their repayment plans. The judge emphasized that the government must take immediate action to settle the outstanding debts, which have been pending for weeks. "I think it’s reasonable to get the plaintiffs’ invoices paid by 6 p.m. on Monday," Judge Ali stated, adding that this would be the first concrete step toward resolving the issue. The order requires the government to pay for work completed prior to February 13 by the specified deadline.

The Hearing and Government’s Arguments

The court hearing on Thursday lasted over four hours, during which Judge Ali scrutinized both the government and the plaintiffs’ proposed repayment plans. The Justice Department argued that the initial deadline of February 26 was "impossible" to meet, citing logistical challenges such as securing approvals for financial transactions over the weekend. However, Judge Ali rejected this argument, pointing out that the government had successfully processed over $70 million in payments between Wednesday night and Thursday morning. He noted that this demonstrated the feasibility of meeting the deadline. The judge also emphasized that the Supreme Court had tasked him with clarifying the government’s role in repayment, a responsibility he took "very seriously." The hearing revealed that the Trump administration had already completed its review of foreign aid contractors and grants, though plaintiffs questioned the fairness and intent behind this review.

Legal and Political Implications of the Ruling

The case revolves around nearly $2 billion in frozen payments owed to foreign aid groups and contractors for projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The Trump administration had imposed a blanket freeze on foreign aid spending, citing the need for government "efficiency" and the elimination of waste. President Donald Trump has reportedly planned to cut up to 90% of USAID foreign aid contracts and slash an additional $60 billion in foreign aid spending. Plaintiffs have accused the administration of attempting to terminate as many contracts as possible, rather than conducting a thorough and fair review. The ruling has significant legal and political implications, as it challenges the administration’s authority to unilaterally halt or terminate congressionally appropriated funds. This issue could eventually be brought back before the Supreme Court, as questions remain about the legality of the administration’s actions.

Underlying Tensions Between the Administration and Aid Groups

The plaintiffs, representing foreign aid groups and contractors, have expressed frustration over the Trump administration’s handling of the payments. They argue that the administration’s rapid dismantling of the systems required to process payments, as well as the purge of USAID staffers who could have facilitated a smoother repayment process, has exacerbate the situation. The plaintiffs contend that Judge Ali’s original deadline of February 26 was not taken seriously by the government, which failed to make meaningful progress toward resolving the issue. Instead, the administration sought to delay the payments further, prompting the Supreme Court to step in and remand the case back to the lower court. The tension between the administration and the aid groups reflects broader disagreements over the role of foreign aid in U.S. policy and the extent to which the executive branch can unilaterally modify or terminate congressionally approved spending.

Next Steps and Potential Supreme Court Involvement

Following the Supreme Court’s 5-4 decision to remand the case, Judge Ali acted swiftly to personally oversee the repayment process. He ordered both parties to return to court on Thursday to discuss feasible repayment schedules and ensure compliance with the court’s orders. While the immediate focus is on meeting the March 10 deadline, the case may not be fully resolved in the near future. The plaintiffs have raised concerns about the administration’s motivations for terminating contracts and its authority to do so, which could lead to further legal challenges. Additionally, the issue of whether the Trump administration can legally terminate projects funded by Congress could eventually rise to the Supreme Court, potentially setting a precedent for executive authority over appropriated funds. For now, Judge Ali’s ruling represents a significant step toward holding the administration accountable for its obligations.

Conclusion: A Victory for Foreign Aid Groups, but a Larger Fight Remains

Judge Ali’s ruling represents a partial victory for foreign aid groups and contractors who have been waiting for months to receive payment for their work. The expedited timeline for repayment reflects the court’s recognition of the urgency and importance of these funds for ongoing projects around the world. However, the broader fight over foreign aid and executive authority is far from over. The Trump administration’s efforts to slash foreign aid spending and terminate contracts have sparked intense legal and political battles, with implications for U.S. foreign policy and global development efforts. As the case moves forward, all eyes will be on whether the government complies with the court’s orders and how the broader issues are ultimately resolved. This case serves as a reminder of the critical role of the judiciary in ensuring accountability and upholding the rule of law, even in the face of significant political opposition.