A U.S. District Court judge made a significant ruling on Thursday, mandating the Trump administration to pay at least a portion of the nearly $2 billion owed in foreign aid for previously completed projects. This expeditious decision came just one day after the Supreme Court rejected the administration's request to continue its freeze on these funds. Judge Amir Ali presided over the case and ordered that the payment must be made by 6 p.m. on Monday, emphasizing the urgency of the situation.
During a lengthy four-hour court hearing, Judge Ali rigorously questioned both parties regarding their proposed repayment plans and the timeline for the government's compliance with the $1.9 billion owed in foreign aid. At the conclusion of the hearing, Judge Ali stated, "I think it’s reasonable to get the plaintiffs' invoices paid by 6 p.m. on Monday." He aimed to ensure that all work completed prior to February 13 would be compensated by the stipulated deadline.
Earlier, the Supreme Court had set a deadline of February 26 at 11:59 p.m. for the Trump administration to fulfill its financial obligations to foreign aid organizations. However, the Justice Department argued that this timeline was unmanageable. Judge Ali appeared to reject this notion during Thursday's proceedings, highlighting the government's capability to process significant payments efficiently, as evidenced by the more than $70 million disbursed in just a few hours from Wednesday night to Thursday morning.
Judge Ali stressed that the February 26 deadline had already passed, and his responsibility, as mandated by the Supreme Court, was to clarify the government's obligations regarding repayment. He expressed the seriousness with which he approached this task, aiming to ensure that the plaintiffs received their payments without further delay.
The case revolves around how promptly the Trump administration must repay nearly $2 billion owed to aid groups and contractors for completed projects funded by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). The administration had previously enacted a blanket freeze on all foreign spending, justifying it as a measure for government efficiency and waste reduction. President Donald Trump has indicated intentions to significantly cut USAID contracts and reduce foreign aid spending by an additional $60 billion.
In the Supreme Court filing, acting U.S. Solicitor General Sarah Harris acknowledged that while the plaintiffs' claims seemed legitimate, the timeline provided by Judge Ali for payment was impractical. The plaintiffs, however, countered that the Trump administration had acted too swiftly in dismantling the payment systems necessary for facilitating these foreign aid payments, including the removal of key USAID personnel who could have streamlined the repayment process.
The plaintiffs argued that a lower court judge had previously ordered the Trump administration to initiate payment of the owed foreign aid more than two weeks ago, a deadline that they claimed the government failed to meet. This situation has raised questions about the administration's commitment to fulfilling its financial obligations to foreign aid groups, potentially leading to further legal challenges in the future.
As the case continues to unfold, the implications of Judge Ali's ruling could have far-reaching effects on foreign aid distribution and the operational capabilities of USAID. The legal ramifications of this situation highlight the ongoing tensions between the Trump administration's policies and the mandates set forth by the judiciary.
