President Donald Trump departs after speaking at Mar-a-Lago in Palm Beach, Fla., Tuesday, Feb. 18, 2025 (Pool via AP).
A federal judge in Washington, D.C., on Thursday ordered the Trump administration to pay tens of millions of dollars in foreign aid just one day after the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the president’s bid to keep the money frozen.
U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali directed the administration to begin paying back at least a portion of the nearly $2 billion it owes to contractors and aid groups for work already completed by 6 p.m. Monday, The Washington Post reported.
The court specifically ordered the government to hand over the outstanding balances owed to the plaintiff organizations in the action — including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the Global Health Council, and Chemonics International — who had entered into contracts or received grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department.
The court order entitles the groups to funds for grant drawdowns and invoices dated before Feb. 13, 2025. The administration had already provided the plaintiffs with about $70 million in funds owed since the freeze began on Jan. 20, the government told the court in a joint status report filed Thursday.
“The government’s made a good showing by getting that,” Ali reportedly said during a four-hour hearing Thursday afternoon. “I do appreciate the government’s taking action on that front.”
During the proceedings, the government asserted that presidents have sweeping authority in the realm of foreign policy and can override Congress on certain spending decisions, The Associated Press reported.
But Ali reportedly was skeptical of the argument, telling Justice Department attorney Indraneel Sur that it would be an “earth-shaking, country-shaking proposition to say that appropriations are optional.”
“The question I have for you is, where are you getting this from in the constitutional document?” he reportedly asked Sur.
Litigation in the highly watched case has moved at lightning speed since last week, beginning with a Feb. 25 emergency hearing during which the plaintiffs presented evidence that the administration had failed to abide by a temporary restraining order (TRO) prohibiting the implementation of the across-the-board freeze.
During those proceedings, Ali lambasted the government’s attorney for saying he was “not in a position to answer” whether any of the funds covered by the court’s order had been unfrozen. A frustrated Ali concluded the hearing with a series of onerous directions to enforce compliance with the temporary restraining order, instructing the administration to unfreeze funds for contract payments on work completed before Feb. 13, 2025, by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday, Feb. 26.
Just hours before the payment deadline, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued an administrative stay, halting the order until the full court could weigh in. In a surprising 5-4 decision, Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett sided with the court’s liberal bloc in rejecting the administration’s request to stay Ali’s order.
The majority did not provide detailed reasoning for its decision, but did instruct Ali to “clarify what obligations the Government must fulfill to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order, with due regard for the feasibility of any compliance timelines.”
Ali reportedly said he intends to take the instructions from the high court “very seriously,” and ordered the plaintiffs to file financial information to help him determine specific payments by noon on Friday, NBC News reported.
The administration reportedly told the court that massive downsizing at USAID had created “a number of logistical problems” that may make it impossible for the agency to have all the funds ready by the Monday deadline. However, Sur said it would likely take no more than 10 business days.
Ali’s current temporary restraining order is set to expire on Monday. The plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction that would effectively keep the order in place until the case is decided on the merits. The administration reportedly argued that there was no need for an injunction because the blanket funding freeze was over after officials had conducted an in-depth review of each individual grant and contract.
The plaintiffs reportedly pushed back on the government’s assertion Thursday.
“Defendants never lifted the pause on foreign assistance. Instead they doubled down,” an attorney for the plaintiffs said, per Politico. “I don’t think here that the government has changed course.”
Ali will rule on the injunction in the coming days.
Love true crime? Sign up for our newsletter, The Law&Crime Docket, to get the latest real-life crime stories delivered right to your inbox.
