The Trump admin is trying to uproot the fraud and waste of the federal government. But the establishment is fighting him.
And now the U.S. Supreme Court has handed Trump a massive loss that he’s furious about.
Supreme Court Deals Setback to Trump Administration’s Foreign Aid Reforms
In a contentious 5-4 emergency ruling on Wednesday, the Supreme Court declined to intervene in a lower court’s decision, effectively forcing the Trump administration to release nearly $2 billion in foreign aid payments tied to existing contracts. The decision marks a notable challenge to President Trump’s ongoing efforts to overhaul federal spending and rein in what his administration views as bloated, inefficient agencies — efforts that have now faced their first test before the nation’s highest court.
The ruling, which saw Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett align with the court’s three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — stands as a setback for an administration determined to assert greater control over how taxpayer dollars are allocated. Meanwhile, the court’s four staunch conservatives — Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh — dissented, voicing strong opposition to what they see as judicial overreach.
Justice Alito, joined by his fellow dissenters, minced no words in his critique. “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) 2 billion taxpayer dollars? The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’ but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise. I am stunned,” he wrote. The dissent raises a fair point: at a time when the Trump administration is working to prioritize American interests and curb wasteful spending, should a lone judge — appointed by Trump’s predecessor, no less — be able to derail those efforts with such sweeping authority?
"I am stunned." The Supreme Court 5-4 ruled that a sole judge can order billions of dollars out the door–unrecoverable. Justice Alito's shock is appropriate. SCOTUS's unwillingness to police the judicial resistance is worrying–hopefully this is resolved on the merits, soon. pic.twitter.com/Xk2obZvtFG
— Eric W. (@EWess92) March 5, 2025
At the heart of the dispute is the administration’s push to reshape the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency long criticized by conservatives for its sprawling bureaucracy and questionable priorities. Under Trump’s leadership, the administration has taken bold steps — firing employees, freezing payments to contractors, and reevaluating commitments that some argue misalign with the “America First” agenda. These moves, while controversial, have sparked a flurry of lawsuits from contractors and advocates accustomed to the old way of doing business.
The Supreme Court’s decision keeps in place an order from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, who ruled that the Trump administration must honor foreign aid agreements predating Trump’s return to office. Judge Ali had previously found the administration noncompliant with his directive to resume unpaid USAID contracts and grants, going so far as to demand the funds be released by the end of the following day last week — a timeline the administration called impractical.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order acknowledged the complexity of the situation, stating, “Given that the deadline in the challenged order has now passed, and in light of the ongoing preliminary injunction proceedings, the District Court should 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.” While this leaves room for further legal maneuvering, it does little to ease the immediate pressure on an administration already juggling a packed domestic and international agenda.
The Justice Department, representing the Trump administration, acted swiftly after Ali’s ruling, appealing to the Supreme Court with an urgent request for relief. “The Executive Branch takes seriously its constitutional duty to comply with the orders of Article III courts,” the department argued in its filings. “The government is undertaking substantial efforts to review payment requests and release payments. Officials at the highest levels of government are engaged on this matter.” The filing paints a picture of an administration striving to balance judicial mandates with its own strategic goals — no small feat given the rapid deadlines imposed by the lower court.
Chief Justice Roberts, who received the emergency request just hours before last week’s midnight deadline, granted a temporary delay to allow both sides to present their cases. But with the full court now weighing in, the administration’s bid to maintain the funding freeze has been rebuffed, leaving it to grapple with the fallout.
On the other side, the USAID contractors suing the government warned of dire consequences if the funds remain withheld. “The government comes to this Court with an emergency of its own making,” their attorneys argued, defending Judge Ali’s order as a reasonable exercise of discretion. They claim their operations will shutter without immediate access to the money — a claim the administration might counter as emblematic of the very dependency it’s trying to break.
For Trump and his team, this ruling is more than a legal hiccup; it’s a test of their ability to enact meaningful change against entrenched interests and an often-resistant judiciary. While the decision stings, it’s unlikely to deter an administration that has consistently shown a willingness to challenge the status quo. As the fight over USAID and federal spending continues, supporters will no doubt see this as a rallying cry to double down on efforts to put American taxpayers first — even if the courts, for now, have other ideas. In fact, the Trump administration has earned some other notable judicial wins over the past few weeks.
Trump Admin Earns Some Big Court Ruling Wins So Far
CIA Director John Ratcliffe has the legal power to terminate employees who held diversity, equity, and inclusion positions, according to a ruling by Judge Anthony Trenga. Multiple outlets reported on the decision, which came after the affected employees filed a lawsuit to prevent their dismissal.
On Feb. 21, Judge Carl Nichols, a Trump appointee, decided that the administration can place USAID workers on leave. This ruling overturned his earlier stance against the government, following a new filing from the administration that guaranteed continued protections for those workers while on leave.
Judge Trevor McFadden allowed the Trump administration to continue excluding Associated Press (AP) reporters from key White House events, at least temporarily. The AP had sought to regain access for its journalists, who faced retaliation after the news outlet persisted in calling the body of water the “Gulf of Mexico,” despite Trump’s directive to rename it the “Gulf of America.” McFadden rejected the AP’s request to lift the ban.
On Feb. 18, Judge Tanya Chutkan turned down a push by Democratic attorneys general to stop Elon Musk and the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) from accessing federal data or making staffing choices. The states claimed Musk, labeled an “agent of chaos,” lacks the power to influence government operations on a large scale. While Chutkan voiced concerns about Musk’s role, she hinted at possibly ruling against him later but declined to intervene for now.
Judge John Bates issued two decisions rejecting labor unions’ attempts to keep DOGE from accessing Labor Department data during ongoing litigation. Initially, he ruled the plaintiffs lacked standing; then, on Feb. 14, he determined they failed to prove their claims had a strong chance of success. Still, Bates noted his “serious concerns about the privacy concerns raised by this case.”
On Feb. 12, Judge George O’Toole permitted a deadline to lapse for federal workers to accept a buyout offer, deciding that labor unions challenging the plan lacked standing to sue. He had previously pushed the deadline back multiple times before letting it expire. Judge Randolph Daniel Moss, on Feb. 17, rejected a bid by federal employees to stop the government from sending mass emails via an allegedly insecure server. Moss concluded the plaintiffs were unlikely to establish they had standing to pursue the case.
Stay tuned to the DC Daily Journal.
