A US federal judge has issued a strict deadline for the administration of President Donald Trump to release billions of dollars in frozen foreign aid, ruling that the White House must comply with court orders to unfreeze funds that had been allocated but withheld. The decision comes after NGOs and government contractors sued the administration, claiming that the aid freeze was illegal and had caused severe disruptions to their operations.

Trump initiated a sweeping freeze on most US foreign aid funding on his first day in office, directing a review of all assistance to ensure compliance with his “America First” policies. The administration justified the move as part of a broader effort to eliminate what it deemed wasteful government spending, arguing that American taxpayer dollars should be used more efficiently. However, the policy quickly became a source of contention, especially for organizations that relied on foreign aid grants and government contracts to conduct humanitarian work, development projects, and political initiatives abroad.

District Judge Amir H. Ali issued a temporary restraining order (TRO) on February 13, instructing the Trump administration to release the funds. However, government attorneys claimed that the administration was complying with the TRO in a manner that still allowed them to cancel or suspend contracts while reviewing them for compliance. Frustrated with what he saw as deliberate noncompliance, Judge Ali escalated the matter in a telephone hearing on February 25, ultimately ruling that the administration must distribute the frozen aid by 11:59 p.m. on February 26.

The lawsuit against the Trump administration was filed by multiple NGOs and companies holding government contracts, which argued that the aid freeze had placed them in a dire financial situation. Plaintiffs reported that they had been forced to lay off employees, shut down critical programs, and, in some cases, faced the possibility of closing their organizations entirely.

The plaintiffs alleged that the Trump administration’s actions amounted to an unlawful interference in congressionally approved funding. They pointed out that the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) had been instructed to withhold millions of dollars in grants, disrupting projects ranging from humanitarian assistance to political stabilization efforts abroad.

One plaintiff, an executive from a Washington-based NGO that receives grants for democracy-building programs in Eastern Europe, stated: “The administration is playing political games with people’s lives. We have contracts that were signed, budgets that were approved, and projects that were underway-suddenly, the money is gone.”

The disruption has also affected contractors providing infrastructure development and logistical support in foreign countries. Many of these firms operate in fragile regions where financial uncertainty can mean the collapse of ongoing development efforts.

The USAID agency, which oversees an estimated $40 billion in annual foreign assistance spending, became a key target for the Trump administration’s cost-cutting efforts. Trump and his government efficiency czar, billionaire entrepreneur Elon Musk, have criticized USAID as an institution rife with waste and corruption. They have even suggested that the agency be dismantled altogether, proposing that foreign aid be restructured to ensure that funding is tied directly to US strategic interests.

Musk, known for his controversial stances on government inefficiency, was appointed to lead the newly created Department of Government Efficiency, which has pushed aggressive cost-cutting measures across multiple federal agencies. The department has argued that foreign aid often ends up in the wrong hands, fueling corruption in recipient countries and failing to achieve its intended objectives.

However, critics argue that Trump and Musk’s approach undermines longstanding diplomatic efforts and humanitarian initiatives. Former USAID officials warn that cutting funding abruptly without a replacement strategy could weaken U.S. influence abroad and create power vacuums that rival nations might exploit.

Judge Ali’s ruling against the Trump administration has set the stage for a broader legal battle over executive authority and congressional control over government spending. Legal experts note that while the president has significant discretion over foreign policy, Congress holds the power of the purse, meaning that Trump’s unilateral decision to withhold congressionally approved funds could be seen as overreach.

“This ruling underscores the limits of executive power,” said constitutional law professor Richard Levinson. “While the president has authority in foreign affairs, he cannot simply override the legislative branch’s decisions on spending. This is a fundamental principle of checks and balances.”

The case could also have political implications as the US heads into the next election cycle. Trump’s critics argue that the aid freeze was part of a broader strategy to centralize power and reduce oversight over foreign policy decisions. Meanwhile, Trump’s supporters see the move as a necessary step toward reforming wasteful spending and reducing America’s financial commitments abroad.

Congressional lawmakers from both parties have reacted to the ruling, with some Republicans siding with Trump’s rationale for reassessing foreign aid expenditures. However, even some conservative lawmakers have raised concerns about the potential legal precedent set by the administration’s refusal to comply with judicial orders.

Democratic lawmakers, on the other hand, have been vocal in their condemnation of the aid freeze. House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairperson Rep. James McGovern called it “a blatant attempt to override Congress’s authority” and said he would push for further investigations into the administration’s handling of foreign aid.

Internationally, the ruling has been welcomed by aid recipients and US allies who depend on American assistance for development and security programs. Many foreign governments had raised concerns over the unpredictability of US aid policies under Trump, warning that such actions could erode trust in long-term partnerships.

With the February 26 deadline looming, the Trump administration must now decide whether to comply with Judge Ali’s order or pursue further legal challenges. If the administration continues to withhold the funds, it could face additional court actions and potential contempt proceedings.

The controversy over the aid freeze highlights deeper ideological divides over the role of US foreign assistance, government efficiency, and executive power. While Trump and Musk’s cost-cutting agenda has strong support among fiscal conservatives, opponents argue that gutting USAID and limiting foreign aid could damage America’s global standing.

As the administration navigates these legal and political battles, the fate of billions in foreign aid-and the future of US international engagement-hangs in the balance.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel