Trump’s attempt to freeze billions of dollars in foreign aid is rejected by the US Supreme Court

The Trump administration’s attempt to keep foreign aid frozen was denied by the US Supreme Court, allowing legal fights to go forward.

The White House is free to continue contesting the matter in lower courts after the split US Supreme Court on Wednesday denied the Trump administration’s plea to hold billions of dollars in congressionally approved foreign aid blocked without immediately stating when the funds must be released.

Five justices—Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—were in the majority after four conservative justices—Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh—dissented from the decision.

The majority pointed out that the lower courts ought to make clear what the government needs to do to guarantee adherence to the temporary restraining order, since the court-mandated deadline for spending the funds last week had already gone.

However, CNN reported that Alito expressed his surprise at the court’s decision to allow the lower-court judge to order the government to unfreeze the foreign aid at issue in the case in a strongly written dissent.

The judgment, however, only makes it possible for the district court to force the Trump administration to make up to $2 billion in foreign aid payments immediately, presumably if it is more explicit about which contracts must be fulfilled.

In many of the more significant Trump-related issues that are currently in the works, the Court will likely be split along these precise lines, according to the article, “because four justices vehemently dissented from such a decision.”

The issue revolves around billions of dollars in foreign aid from the US Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department, which Trump froze in January in an effort to control expenditure and align both organizations with his policies.

A number of charity organizations that depend on the funds for global health and other initiatives filed a lawsuit, claiming that the administration’s actions infringed upon a federal law that governs agency decision-making and usurped Congress’ authority to regulate government spending.

The groups called the administration’s actions “devastating” in a brief released on Friday.

They informed the court that the financing “improves – and, in many cases, literally saves – the lives of millions of people throughout the globe and advances US interests abroad.” The organizations claimed that by doing this, “it helps stop problems like disease and instability overseas before they reach our shores.”

Additionally, Trump appeared to soften his tough stance on Wednesday when he announced that he would halt tariffs on cars entering the United States from Canada and Mexico for a month. This came after a day earlier, he imposed a 25% tariff on America’s closest trading partners, which shook stock markets and sparked opposition from business.

In a statement from Trump, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stated that the White House has conferred with the three biggest manufacturers and that vehicles entering through the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement would be granted a one-month exception.

The auto industry may still be impacted by additional trade-related tariffs that take effect on April 2, according to Leavitt. However, the statement said that “the president is giving them an exemption for one month at the request of the companies associated with U.S.M.C.A., so they are not at an economic disadvantage.” General Motors, Ford Motor, and Stellantis were the three automakers with which Mr. Trump had conversations.

Leavitt responded that Trump expects the automakers to return production to the United States when asked why he only gave a one-month respite. “Get on it, shift production here to America where they will pay no tariffs,” she added, was the message.

Despite Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s efforts, the president refused to grant Canada a more comprehensive respite. After speaking with Trudeau, Trump said on social media that he was still not persuaded that Canada had gone far enough in halting the flow of fentanyl across the border.

“Many people have died from Fentanyl that came through the Borders of Canada and Mexico, and nothing has convinced me that it has stopped,” Trump tweeted on Truth Social, referring to his conversation with Trudeau about the drug. “He stated that things have improved, but I said, ‘That’s not good enough,'” the president continued.

According to people familiar with the situation, the US has also stopped exchanging intelligence with Kyiv, which could significantly impair the Ukrainian military’s capacity to strike Russian forces, the Financial Times reported.

Following a sharp deterioration in the relationship between the US president and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy, the Trump administration decided on Monday to halt military aid deliveries to Ukraine.

Ukraine’s ability to locate and attack Russian military sites has been made possible by US intelligence cooperation. The freezing of intelligence channels between Washington and Kyiv was verified by three officials who were acquainted with the decision.

According to two sources, recipients who have assets in Ukraine are likely to keep providing Kyiv with pertinent material, even if the US has officially prohibited its friends from sharing US intelligence with Ukraine. However, that wouldn’t apply to high-value, time-sensitive intelligence, such that required for Ukraine to launch precision strikes against Russian targets that are mobile.

The Daily Mail was the first to report on the United States’ determination to prohibit its allies from providing Ukraine with intelligence.

Relations between Washington and Kyiv declined following a contentious dispute between Zelenskyy and Trump in the Oval Office, although there have been recent indications of improvement.

In a display of remorse, Zelenskyy said Tuesday that Ukraine was “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible” and that the meeting in front of the television cameras was “regrettable.”

In a letter, he also stated that he was prepared to reach an agreement with Trump “at any time” that would grant the US the authority to make money off of Ukraine’s natural resources.

Trump, who has previously referred to the democratically elected Zelenskyy as a “dictator,” expressed gratitude for the Ukrainian leader’s remarks at his State of the Union speech on Tuesday night. US National Security Adviser Mike Waltz hinted on Wednesday that military assistance to Ukraine might be resumed.

“I believe the president will take a close look at ending this pause if we can finalize these talks, move forward with them, and actually put some measures on the table to build confidence,” Waltz told Fox News.

China has responded to Trump’s increasing trade penalties by warning the US that it is prepared to fight “any type” of war.

Trump’s increased tariffs on all Chinese goods have brought the two largest economies in the world one step closer to a trade war. China swiftly responded by levying duties on US agricultural products ranging from 10% to 15%.

In a post on X, the Chinese embassy in Washington stated: “We’re prepared to fight to the end if the United States wants war, whether it be a trade war, tariff war, or any other kind of war.”

It comes as top leaders met in Beijing for the beginning of the annual National People’s Congress, and it is some of the most forceful rhetoric China has used since Trump took office.

Beijing’s leaders are attempting to convey to the Chinese people that, despite the possibility of a trade war, they are optimistic that the nation’s economy can expand.

In contrast to the US, which Beijing claims is involved in conflicts in the Middle East and Ukraine, China has been eager to project an image of being a stable, peaceful nation.

China might also be hoping to benefit from Trump’s measures regarding US allies like Canada and Mexico, who have also been subject to tariffs, and won’t want to escalate the rhetoric too much in order to turn off possible new international partners.

China has previously made it clear that it is prepared for war. During military exercises conducted in October outside the self-governing island of Taiwan, President Xi Jinping urged troops to increase their readiness for conflict. However, military readiness and war readiness are not the same thing.

The Chinese embassy in Washington cited an English-language foreign ministry statement from the day before, accusing the United States of blaming China for the fentanyl surge.

According to the foreign ministry spokesperson, “the fentanyl issue is a thin pretext to increase US tariffs on Chinese imports.”

We are not frightened by intimidation. Bullying is ineffective against us. Threats, intimidation, and pressure are not the best ways to deal with China,” he continued.

One of the most tense relationships in the world is always that between the US and China. The China hawks in Trump’s cabinet may take this widely shared post on X as proof that Beijing poses the greatest economic and foreign policy threat to Washington.

After Trump invited Xi to his inauguration, Beijing officials had hoped that US-China relations would start off more amicably under his leadership. Trump added that a few days prior to his arrival in the White House, the two leaders had “a great phone call.”

The two leaders were reportedly scheduled for another call last month. That didn’t occur.

Xi was already struggling with unemployment, a real estate crisis, and consistently low spending.

With thousands of delegates attending the National People’s Congress, a rubber-stamp parliament that makes decisions already made behind closed doors, China has promised to invest billions of dollars in its struggling economy.

At $245 billion, China’s military budget is the second largest in the world, but it is still significantly less than the US’s. At 1.6% of GDP, Beijing’s military spending is far lower than that of the US or Russia, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute.

Analysts, however, think China minimizes its defense spending.