Trump administration hurries to Supreme Court to contest judge's directive mandating foreign-aid payments
Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris informed the high court that the administration is unable to meet a midnight deadline.
TroibNews 
The Trump administration filed an application with the Supreme Court on Wednesday night, seeking to overturn a federal judge's order mandating nearly $2 billion in payments to foreign-aid contractors within a short timeframe.
In the emergency application, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris emphasized that fulfilling the urgent deadline set by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali was unfeasible. Ali had ruled in response to lawsuits from aid organizations that claimed they were severely impacted by the suspension of funding.
Ali, appointed by former President Joe Biden, issued his directive on Tuesday after determining that the Trump administration had essentially disregarded a prior court ruling that required the State Department to resume payments to foreign aid groups. Instead of lifting the funding freeze, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had developed new legal justifications to keep the payments on hold, according to the judge.
Consequently, Ali ordered that the administration must deliver payments for approximately $2 billion worth of completed work by aid contractors by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday.
Organizations dependent on foreign aid have reported that the sudden halt in funding—stemming from an executive order by President Donald Trump that mandated a “pause” on all foreign assistance—has devastated numerous organizations, leading to closures, job losses, and a cessation of vital humanitarian efforts worldwide. These groups assert that the Trump administration's attempts to terminate contracts and cut off aid have escalated since Ali's orders to lift the spending freeze.
The Trump administration announced Wednesday it is cutting over 90 percent of USAID foreign-aid contracts, resulting in an overall reduction of $60 billion in foreign assistance.
Peter Marocco, who is overseeing USAID's daily operations as a Trump appointee, submitted a statement to Ali indicating that meeting his rapid deadline would be impossible and would actually require “weeks” to restart the disrupted payment systems.
“Restarting funding related to terminated or suspended agreements is not as simple as turning on a switch or faucet,” Marocco explained. “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 argue that the administration's inability to meet the judge's deadline is a consequence of its own choices. They contend that the government should not have deactivated operational payment systems without having a replacement ready and that it should have complied with Ali's earlier order to restart these systems. They also mentioned that robust safeguards were in place to ensure that outgoing funds were allocated to legitimate bills.
Harris filed the emergency petition with the Supreme Court around the same time that a federal appeals court in Washington rejected a similar emergency appeal of Ali's ruling. The unanimous decision from the three-judge appellate panel pointed out that temporary restraining orders like Ali's generally cannot be appealed, and there was no justification for making an exception in this case. This ruling positions the Supreme Court as the final option for the Trump administration.
Harris stated the administration is ready to pay any legitimate bills for work that has been properly completed but suggested that conducting a review for waste, fraud, and abuse would require more time than allowed by Ali's orders.
“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 asserted. “It is attempting to navigate the district court’s evolving orders — and the ensuing, resource-consuming contract-review process — as best it can.”
She further argued that Ali overstepped his authority by intervening in the matter, suggesting that he was infringing upon Trump’s power to direct 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 stated.
The Trump administration's efforts to swiftly dismantle USAID and limit its international grants and contracts have sparked one of the most heated legal disputes in Trump’s second term. Additionally, another federal judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, had temporarily halted attempts by Trump officials to place thousands of USAID staff on administrative leave, including many stationed overseas. However, Nichols lifted the injunction last week.
Other organizations affected by the reduction in foreign-aid funds have also initiated lawsuits, including personal service contractors and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Rohan Mehta for TROIB News
In the emergency application, acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris emphasized that fulfilling the urgent deadline set by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali was unfeasible. Ali had ruled in response to lawsuits from aid organizations that claimed they were severely impacted by the suspension of funding.
Ali, appointed by former President Joe Biden, issued his directive on Tuesday after determining that the Trump administration had essentially disregarded a prior court ruling that required the State Department to resume payments to foreign aid groups. Instead of lifting the funding freeze, the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) had developed new legal justifications to keep the payments on hold, according to the judge.
Consequently, Ali ordered that the administration must deliver payments for approximately $2 billion worth of completed work by aid contractors by 11:59 p.m. on Wednesday.
Organizations dependent on foreign aid have reported that the sudden halt in funding—stemming from an executive order by President Donald Trump that mandated a “pause” on all foreign assistance—has devastated numerous organizations, leading to closures, job losses, and a cessation of vital humanitarian efforts worldwide. These groups assert that the Trump administration's attempts to terminate contracts and cut off aid have escalated since Ali's orders to lift the spending freeze.
The Trump administration announced Wednesday it is cutting over 90 percent of USAID foreign-aid contracts, resulting in an overall reduction of $60 billion in foreign assistance.
Peter Marocco, who is overseeing USAID's daily operations as a Trump appointee, submitted a statement to Ali indicating that meeting his rapid deadline would be impossible and would actually require “weeks” to restart the disrupted payment systems.
“Restarting funding related to terminated or suspended agreements is not as simple as turning on a switch or faucet,” Marocco explained. “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 argue that the administration's inability to meet the judge's deadline is a consequence of its own choices. They contend that the government should not have deactivated operational payment systems without having a replacement ready and that it should have complied with Ali's earlier order to restart these systems. They also mentioned that robust safeguards were in place to ensure that outgoing funds were allocated to legitimate bills.
Harris filed the emergency petition with the Supreme Court around the same time that a federal appeals court in Washington rejected a similar emergency appeal of Ali's ruling. The unanimous decision from the three-judge appellate panel pointed out that temporary restraining orders like Ali's generally cannot be appealed, and there was no justification for making an exception in this case. This ruling positions the Supreme Court as the final option for the Trump administration.
Harris stated the administration is ready to pay any legitimate bills for work that has been properly completed but suggested that conducting a review for waste, fraud, and abuse would require more time than allowed by Ali's orders.
“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 asserted. “It is attempting to navigate the district court’s evolving orders — and the ensuing, resource-consuming contract-review process — as best it can.”
She further argued that Ali overstepped his authority by intervening in the matter, suggesting that he was infringing upon Trump’s power to direct 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 stated.
The Trump administration's efforts to swiftly dismantle USAID and limit its international grants and contracts have sparked one of the most heated legal disputes in Trump’s second term. Additionally, another federal judge, Trump appointee Carl Nichols, had temporarily halted attempts by Trump officials to place thousands of USAID staff on administrative leave, including many stationed overseas. However, Nichols lifted the injunction last week.
Other organizations affected by the reduction in foreign-aid funds have also initiated lawsuits, including personal service contractors and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
Rohan Mehta for TROIB News
