US Supreme Court rejects Trump request to freeze $2bn foreign aid

The US Supreme Court has denied the President Donald Trump administration’s request to withhold about $2 billion in foreign aid.

Join the Premium Times WhatsApp Community For Quick Access To News and Happenings Around You.

Open in WhatsApp

This sum should be used to pay foreign aid organisations for work already completed for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). However, President Trump’s administration sought the court’s support to freeze the funds.

On Wednesday, the US Supreme Court ruled that the administration should unfreeze the nearly $2 billlion in aid for work already done and approved by Congress.

Multiple media outlets reported that the court’s brief order was unsigned, which is typical of a situation when the justices act on emergency applications.

By a 5-4 split decision, the Supreme Court upheld a district court’s order that the administration release the funds to USAID contractors and grant recipients.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Amy Barrett joined the liberal justices to affirm the district judge’s earlier decision.

Wednesday’s decision is a setback for the President Trump administration’s key goal of slashing the size and the spending of the government.

Stay Ahead with Premium Times

Add as a preferred source on Google

US aid freeze

When Mr Trump took office on 20 January, he imposed a 90-day freeze on all US foreign assistance to assess whether it aligned with his “America First” foreign policy. This temporary suspension disrupted thousands of programmes worldwide.

The decision led to widespread chaos, with aid organisations reporting that the freeze halted the delivery of life-saving medication and food to vulnerable populations and communities worldwide.

PREMIUM TIMES reported that the freeze halted the activities of numerous non-governmental organisations in Nigeria. Clinics and research centres shut down, intervention programmes were abruptly suspended, and humanitarian aid dwindled, leaving vulnerable groups without essential support.

In response, several aid organisations that had received grants or contracts from the US government sued the Trump administration, requesting that a federal judge intervene and release the funds.

The organisations argued that the prolonged funding freeze would cause them “extraordinary and irreversible harm”, affecting their operations, their employees, and the communities that depend on their assistance.

Court rulings

Last month, district judge Amir Ani ruled twice that the US government must pay USAID’s contractors for completed work.

The first ruling was issued with a deadline of February 13.

About a week later, after finding that the government had failed to comply with his order, the judge issued a second ruling, setting a new deadline for payment by midnight on 26 February.

However, as the deadline approached, Mr Trump’s administration sought emergency intervention from the Supreme Court, claiming that the limited timeframe made it impossible to process the claims in an orderly manner.

The Supreme Court said there was no indication the administration had taken any steps to comply with the earlier order to lift the freeze on the funds.

The court also ordered the district judge to clarify his previous order regarding what obligations the government must fulfil to ensure compliance with it.

However, it remains unclear if this ruling also protects the interests of contractors in Nigeria and other African countries.

Dissenting opinion

Meanwhile, four of the court’s conservative justices, Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, disagreed with the majority decision.

In his dissenting opinion, Mr Alito said he was “stunned” by the majority decision.

“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) billion[s in] taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise,” The Guardian quoted him as saying.