On Thursday, global health organizations and the Trump administration announced their inability to establish an agreement regarding the unfreezing of nearly $2 billion in foreign aid. This development comes in the wake of a Supreme Court directive emphasizing that these payments must proceed. The AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council have accused the administration of consistently disobeying a judicial order to resume financial assistance, while Trump officials maintain that they possess separate legal authority to halt a majority of the spending allocated for essential resources such as food, medicine, and vaccines.
U.S. District Court Judge Amir H. Ali convened a hearing on Thursday afternoon in Washington D.C. to address this contentious issue. Initially, Judge Ali mandated the Trump administration to restart foreign aid in a ruling issued on February 13. He subsequently set a February 26 deadline for nearly $2 billion to begin disbursing for projects completed prior to his ruling, expressing concerns about the government's compliance.
In response to the judge's order, the Trump administration requested that the Supreme Court intervene and block the deadline. However, in a closely contested 5-4 ruling on Wednesday, the court rejected this request, marking its first significant engagement with the Trump administration's agenda during his second term.
Following the Supreme Court's decision, Judge Ali instructed both the global health groups and the Trump administration to present a plan on Thursday morning that outlined a timeline for initiating the repayments. In their joint filing, the health organizations urged the Trump administration to restart hundreds of millions of dollars in aid payments by March 10.
However, the Justice Department asserted that the administration had canceled the majority of contracts from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development that the global health groups sought to reactivate. The government claimed it had the legal authority to make these cancellations without infringing upon Ali's temporary restraining order from February 13.
Jenny Breen, an associate professor of law at Syracuse University, reviewed the government's filing upon request from The Washington Post. She expressed skepticism regarding the government's compliance, commenting, “It does not sound like they are in meaningful compliance.”
The global health groups previously filed a lawsuit against the administration for its 90-day suspension of foreign assistance, arguing that the pause was resulting in severe suffering and loss of life in unstable regions globally. Trump officials defended their stance, stating they needed to review thousands of contracts to ensure alignment with the president’s policy objectives.
During the Thursday hearing, government attorney Indraneel Sur stated that the Trump administration had completed its review and canceled most of the contracts, asserting that this was done under a separate authority from the executive order that initially paused the aid. Sur claimed that the cancellations rendered the need for Ali’s temporary restraining order moot, as there was now no aid to restore.
“The funding freeze is not continuing,” Sur declared. “It’s over.” In contrast, Lauren Bateman, an attorney representing some plaintiffs, challenged the government’s assertion, questioning how individual contract reviews could be comprehensively completed in such a limited timeframe. Bateman suggested that this review process was merely a tactic to circumvent Ali’s temporary restraining order and perpetuate the administration's desired policies.
She noted that clients had received communications indicating that the review might still be ongoing, stating, “All evidence suggests these terminations were not made in good faith.” The hearing extended into Thursday evening, with Judge Ali expected to issue a ruling after its conclusion.
