Trump administrator asks Scotus to continue freezing on billions of USAID payments

Lawyers of the Trump administration filed an emergency call on Tuesday evening before the Supreme Court asking judges to suspend an injunction of the lower court and allow it to freeze billions of foreign aid spending previously allocated by the congress – by cutting the question of the financing of the USAID to the high court for the second time in about six months.

The question is nearly $ 12 billion in funding allocated to the American Agency for International Development (USAID) and due to the end of the financial year in September. The majority of these funds were canceled by President Donald Trump almost immediately after taking office, under the wider coat to reduce foreign aid and eliminate “waste, fraud and abuse”.

US Solicitor General D. John Sauer told the Supreme Court on Tuesday in an emergency file that, in the absence of high court intervention, the Trump administration would be forced to “quickly force some $ 12 billion in foreign funds” due before September 30 or at the end of the fiscal year.

Scotus reigns over almost $ 2 billion in Payments Frozen Usaid

Employees and supporters meet to protest outside the headquarters of the American Agency for International Development (USAID) in February 2025 to protest against the financing of the ax. (Images Kevin Dietsch / Getty)

These payments were retained in court for months after President Donald Trump signed a decree on the first day of return in January in January to block almost all foreign aid expenses, as part of the broader repression of his administration against waste, fraud and abuse.

This order was blocked by a federal judge at DC earlier this year. This judge, the American district judge Amir Ali, ordered the Trump administration to resume payments on billions of dollars in funding for USAID projects which were previously approved by the Congress.

This ordinance was canceled this month by the American district court of appeal for the DC circuit, which ruled 2-1 to cancel the injunction of the lower courtyard.

Trump temporarily thwarted in Doge Mission to end the Usaid

US President Donald Trump, right, and Elon Musk, CEO of Tesla Inc., at a press conference at the White House Oval Office in Washington, DC, in May 2025. (Francis Chung / Politico / Bloomberg via Getty Images)

The Court of Appeal partially canceled the injunction of judge Ali, rejecting a request for foreign aid groups which had sought to restore the payments of grants. The majority 2-1 also judged that the complainants Watch failure Trump had acted “clearly” beyond his executive authorities.

Write for the majorityJudge Karen L. Henderson, president of George HW Bush, said the complainants did not have the good cause of action to continue the Trump administration about his decision to retain funds, or what is called restraint.

But the Court of Appeal has not yet made a mandate to enforce this decision – which means that, for the moment, the order of the judge and the payment calendar which he previously presented – remains in place.

The federal judge orders the Trump administration to pay “illegally” limited funds from the USAID

The demonstrators have signs under the name of Pete Marocco, deputy director Frsnat at USAID, attend a meeting with members of the Congress on Capitol Hill in DC on March 5, 2025. (Reuters / Kent Nishimura)

Sauer argued in the appeal of the Supreme Emergency Court that the foreign aid groups, which continued the Trump administration this year in order to recover part of the subsidy, have no legal power to challenge the executive power on the issue, which is technically under the legal court of the law on the control of the impoundment.

“The Congress did not upset the delicate interbranche balance by allowing unlimited and non -constrained private costumes,” Sauer wrote. “Any persistent dispute about the appropriate provision of funds that the president seeks to cancel shortly before their expiration should be left to political branches, and not effectively prejudiced by the district court.”

Click here to obtain the Fox News app

The complainants, for their part, argue that the executive power does not have the power to unilaterally retain already appropriate funds, under the law on the control of furniture (ICA), as well as the law on administrative procedure.

The Supreme Court had previously ruled 5-4.