Chief justice permits Trump administration to temporarily maintain freeze on foreign aid
John Roberts took action after the Trump administration informed the high court that it was unable to meet a midnight deadline to lift the freeze on payments.
TroibNews 
On Wednesday night, Chief Justice John Roberts granted a reprieve to the Trump administration in its effort to maintain a freeze on billions of dollars in foreign aid, despite a federal judge's order to immediately resume payments.
Roberts' intervention prevents the risk of administration officials facing contempt charges for not complying with U.S. District Judge Amir Ali's directive, which set a deadline of 11:59 p.m. Wednesday for the government to pay nearly $2 billion in outstanding bills from foreign-aid contractors.
Following a request from acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who claimed compliance with the urgent deadline was unattainable, Roberts issued a stay of Ali's order. The freeze on funds was imposed as a result of lawsuits from aid groups alleging severe impacts from the administration's broad cessation of foreign assistance.
Roberts did not provide any explanation for his decision, which he made around 9:30 p.m. He used a procedural form typically utilized by the justices to temporarily pause lower-court proceedings while the Supreme Court determines how to proceed. He instructed the aid groups involved in the lawsuits to respond to the government's application by noon on Friday.
It is highly likely that Roberts will refer the issue to the full Supreme Court, and his stay is expected to remain in effect until the court takes action.
Judge Ali, appointed by former President Joe Biden, ordered the administration on Tuesday to settle the outstanding invoices by the end of Wednesday. His ruling followed his finding that the Trump administration had effectively ignored prior orders mandating the State Department to lift a general freeze on overseas aid programs.
According to Ali, instead of complying with his February 13 directive to unfreeze the aid, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) found alternative legal justifications to continue withholding the funds.
As a consequence, Ali imposed a deadline for the administration to make payments totaling approximately $2 billion for work completed by aid contractors.
Organizations and companies managing programs funded by U.S. foreign aid argue that the sudden freeze—initiated by President Donald Trump's Day 1 executive order calling for a "pause" on foreign assistance—has had disastrous effects, leading to closures, layoffs, and the halting of critical humanitarian efforts worldwide. They assert that the Trump administration's actions to terminate contracts and cut off aid have persisted despite Ali's orders to restore funding.
On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced plans to eliminate over 90% of USAID foreign-aid contracts and reduce overall foreign assistance by $60 billion.
Peter Marocco, the Trump appointee overseeing USAID's daily operations, submitted a statement to Ali on Tuesday indicating that meeting the quick deadline mandated by the judge would be impossible and would require "weeks' of work to restart dismantled payment systems."
“Restarting funding related to terminated or suspended agreements is not as simple as turning on a switch or faucet,” Marocco noted. “Rather, the payment systems of USAID and State are complicated and require various steps before payments are authorized to be disbursed by the U.S. Treasury, Department of Health and Human Services, and/or the Department of State, involving multiple agencies.”
However, foreign-aid groups contend that the difficulties the government faces in meeting the judge's midnight deadline stem from its own choices. According to these groups, the government should never have deactivated effective payment systems without suitable replacements and should not have circumvented Ali's initial order to restart them. They highlight the significant safeguards in place to ensure that outgoing funds are for legitimate expenses.
Harris filed the emergency petition with the justices around the same time a federal appeals court in Washington rejected a similar emergency appeal of Ali’s decision. The unanimous three-judge panel stated that temporary restraining orders, like the one Ali issued, typically cannot be appealed and found no grounds to deviate from that practice in this instance. This ruling positioned the Supreme Court as the remaining recourse for the Trump administration.
Harris asserted that the administration was ready to pay any outstanding bills for completed work, but she implied that a necessary review for waste, fraud, and abuse demanded a longer process than what Ali’s orders allowed.
“To be very clear, the government is committed to paying legitimate claims for work that was properly completed pursuant to intact obligations and supported by proper documentation,” Harris stated. “It is attempting to navigate the district court’s evolving orders — and the ensuing, resource-consuming contract-review process — as best it can.”
Harris also argued that Ali lacked the authority to intervene, suggesting that he was encroaching on Trump’s prerogative to direct U.S. foreign policy.
“The President’s power is at its apex and the power of the judiciary is at its nadir in matters of foreign affairs,” Harris remarked.
The Trump administration's efforts to dismantle USAID and reduce its international grants and contracts have sparked one of the most intense legal battles of Trump’s second term. Another federal judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, briefly blocked efforts by Trump officials to place thousands of USAID employees on administrative leave, including hundreds overseas, but lifted that blockade last week.
Other entities dependent on foreign-aid funds have also filed lawsuits, including personal service contractors and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
Roberts' intervention prevents the risk of administration officials facing contempt charges for not complying with U.S. District Judge Amir Ali's directive, which set a deadline of 11:59 p.m. Wednesday for the government to pay nearly $2 billion in outstanding bills from foreign-aid contractors.
Following a request from acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, who claimed compliance with the urgent deadline was unattainable, Roberts issued a stay of Ali's order. The freeze on funds was imposed as a result of lawsuits from aid groups alleging severe impacts from the administration's broad cessation of foreign assistance.
Roberts did not provide any explanation for his decision, which he made around 9:30 p.m. He used a procedural form typically utilized by the justices to temporarily pause lower-court proceedings while the Supreme Court determines how to proceed. He instructed the aid groups involved in the lawsuits to respond to the government's application by noon on Friday.
It is highly likely that Roberts will refer the issue to the full Supreme Court, and his stay is expected to remain in effect until the court takes action.
Judge Ali, appointed by former President Joe Biden, ordered the administration on Tuesday to settle the outstanding invoices by the end of Wednesday. His ruling followed his finding that the Trump administration had effectively ignored prior orders mandating the State Department to lift a general freeze on overseas aid programs.
According to Ali, instead of complying with his February 13 directive to unfreeze the aid, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) found alternative legal justifications to continue withholding the funds.
As a consequence, Ali imposed a deadline for the administration to make payments totaling approximately $2 billion for work completed by aid contractors.
Organizations and companies managing programs funded by U.S. foreign aid argue that the sudden freeze—initiated by President Donald Trump's Day 1 executive order calling for a "pause" on foreign assistance—has had disastrous effects, leading to closures, layoffs, and the halting of critical humanitarian efforts worldwide. They assert that the Trump administration's actions to terminate contracts and cut off aid have persisted despite Ali's orders to restore funding.
On Wednesday, the Trump administration announced plans to eliminate over 90% of USAID foreign-aid contracts and reduce overall foreign assistance by $60 billion.
Peter Marocco, the Trump appointee overseeing USAID's daily operations, submitted a statement to Ali on Tuesday indicating that meeting the quick deadline mandated by the judge would be impossible and would require "weeks' of work to restart dismantled payment systems."
“Restarting funding related to terminated or suspended agreements is not as simple as turning on a switch or faucet,” Marocco noted. “Rather, the payment systems of USAID and State are complicated and require various steps before payments are authorized to be disbursed by the U.S. Treasury, Department of Health and Human Services, and/or the Department of State, involving multiple agencies.”
However, foreign-aid groups contend that the difficulties the government faces in meeting the judge's midnight deadline stem from its own choices. According to these groups, the government should never have deactivated effective payment systems without suitable replacements and should not have circumvented Ali's initial order to restart them. They highlight the significant safeguards in place to ensure that outgoing funds are for legitimate expenses.
Harris filed the emergency petition with the justices around the same time a federal appeals court in Washington rejected a similar emergency appeal of Ali’s decision. The unanimous three-judge panel stated that temporary restraining orders, like the one Ali issued, typically cannot be appealed and found no grounds to deviate from that practice in this instance. This ruling positioned the Supreme Court as the remaining recourse for the Trump administration.
Harris asserted that the administration was ready to pay any outstanding bills for completed work, but she implied that a necessary review for waste, fraud, and abuse demanded a longer process than what Ali’s orders allowed.
“To be very clear, the government is committed to paying legitimate claims for work that was properly completed pursuant to intact obligations and supported by proper documentation,” Harris stated. “It is attempting to navigate the district court’s evolving orders — and the ensuing, resource-consuming contract-review process — as best it can.”
Harris also argued that Ali lacked the authority to intervene, suggesting that he was encroaching on Trump’s prerogative to direct U.S. foreign policy.
“The President’s power is at its apex and the power of the judiciary is at its nadir in matters of foreign affairs,” Harris remarked.
The Trump administration's efforts to dismantle USAID and reduce its international grants and contracts have sparked one of the most intense legal battles of Trump’s second term. Another federal judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, briefly blocked efforts by Trump officials to place thousands of USAID employees on administrative leave, including hundreds overseas, but lifted that blockade last week.
Other entities dependent on foreign-aid funds have also filed lawsuits, including personal service contractors and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Mathilde Moreau for TROIB News
