A divided US Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected the Donald Trump administration’s request to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid approved by Congress frozen, but failed to immediately say when the money must be released, allowing the White House to continue to dispute the issue in lower courts.
With the ruling being five-four, four conservative justices–Samuel Alito, Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh dissented, putting five justices-Chief Justice John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson in the majority.
The majority noted that given a court-ordered deadline to spend the money last week had already passed, the lower courts should clarify what obligations the government must fulfil to ensure compliance with the temporary restraining order.
But in a strongly worded dissent, Alito wrote that he was “stunned” by the court’s decision to permit the lower-court judge to order the administration to unfreeze the foreign aid at issue in the case, CNN reported.
However, the order does not actually require the Trump administration to immediately make up to $2 billion in foreign aid payments; it merely clears the way for the district court to compel those payments, presumably if it is more specific about the contracts that have to be honoured.
“The fact that four justices nevertheless dissented – vigorously – from such a decision is a sign that the Court is going to be divided, perhaps along these exact lines, in many of the more impactful Trump-related cases that are already on their way,” the report stated.
At the centre of the case is billions in foreign aid from the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID) that Trump froze in January as he sought to clamp down spending and bring those agencies in line with his agenda.
Several nonprofit groups that rely on the funding for global health and other programs sued, asserting that the administration’s moves usurped the power of Congress to control government spending and violated a federal law that dictates how agencies make decisions.
In a brief on Friday, the groups described the administration’s actions as having a “devastating” impact.
They told the court that the funding “advances US interests abroad and improves – and, in many cases, literally saves – the lives of millions of people across the globe.” “In doing so, it helps stop problems like disease and instability overseas before they reach our shores,” the groups said.
Besides, in what looked like a softening of his hard stance, Trump said on Wednesday he would pause tariffs on cars coming into America from Canada and Mexico for a period of one month, after a 25 per cent tariff that he placed on America’s closest trading partners a day earlier roiled stock markets and caused pushback from industry.
White House Press Secretary, Karoline Leavitt, in a statement from Trump, said that the White House had spoken with the three largest automakers, and that a one-month exemption would be given to cars coming in through the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
Additional trade-related tariffs that may affect the auto industry will still go into effect on April 2,mLeavitt said. But “at the request of the companies associated with U.S.M.C.A., the president is giving them an exemption for one month so they are not at an economic disadvantage,” the statement said. The three automakers that Mr. Trump spoke with were General Motors, Ford Motor and Stellantis.
Asked why Trump granted only a one-month reprieve, Leavitt said the president expected the automakers to move production back to the United States. The message, she said, was to “get on it, shift production here to America where they will pay no tariffs,” she said.
The president declined to offer a broader reprieve to Canada, despite overtures by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Trump wrote on social media that he had talked with Trudeau and was still not convinced that Canada had done enough to stop the flow of fentanyl over the border.
On Truth Social, Trump wrote that he had told Trudeau that “many people have died from Fentanyl that came through the Borders of Canada and Mexico, and nothing has convinced me that it has stopped. The president added: “He said that it’s gotten better, but I said, ‘That’s not good enough.’”
In another development, the US has cut off intelligence sharing with Kyiv in a move that could seriously hamper the Ukrainian military’s ability to target Russian forces, officials familiar with the matter have told the Financial Times.
The move followed the decision on Monday by the Trump administration to suspend military aid deliveries to Ukraine and comes after a dramatic breakdown in relations between the US president and Ukraine’s Volodymyr Zelenskyy.
US intelligence co-operation has been essential for Ukraine’s ability to identify and strike Russian military targets. Three officials familiar with the decision confirmed that Washington had frozen intelligence channels with Kyiv.
While the US has also formally blocked its allies from sharing US intelligence with Ukraine, two officials said that recipients with assets inside the country were likely to continue passing on relevant intelligence to Kyiv. But that would not apply to time-sensitive and high-value intelligence, such as that needed for Ukraine to conduct precision strikes on moveable Russian targets.
The US decision to ban its allies from passing intelligence to Ukraine was first reported by the Daily Mail.
After a heated Oval Office clash between Zelenskyy and Trump, relations between Washington and Kyiv deteriorated before recent signs of repair.
Zelenskyy made a show of contrition on Tuesday, saying the meeting in front of the television cameras was “regrettable” and Ukraine was “ready to come to the negotiating table as soon as possible”.
He also said in a letter he was ready to sign a deal with Trump “at any time” that would give the US the rights to profit from exploiting Ukraine’s natural resources.
In his State of the Union address on Tuesday night, Trump — who has previously called the democratically elected Zelenskyy a “dictator” — said he appreciated the Ukrainian leader’s words. On Wednesday Mike Waltz, US National Security Adviser, suggested military aid to Ukraine could be restarted.
“I think if we can nail down these negotiations and move towards these negotiations, and in fact, put some confidence-building measures on the table, then the president will take a hard look at lifting this pause,” Waltz told Fox News.
Meanwhile, China has warned the US it is ready to fight “any type” of war after hitting back against Trump’s mounting trade tariffs.
The world’s top two economies have edged closer to a trade war after Trump slapped more tariffs on all Chinese goods. China quickly retaliated, imposing between 10-15 per cent tariffs on US farm products.
The Chinese embassy in Washington, in a post on X, said: “If war is what the US wants, be it a tariff war, a trade war or any other type of war, we’re ready to fight till the end.”
It is some of the strongest rhetoric so far from China since Trump became president and comes as top leaders gathered in Beijing for the opening of the annual National People’s Congress.
Leaders in Beijing are trying to send a message to people in China that they are confident the country’s economy can grow, even with the threat of a trade war.
China has been keen to portray an image of being a stable, peaceful country in contrast to the US, which Beijing accuses of being embroiled in wars in the Middle East and Ukraine.
China may also hope to capitalise on Trump’s actions relating to US allies such as Canada and Mexico, which have also been hit by tariffs, and will not want to ramp up the rhetoric too far to scare off potential new global partners.
China has, in the past, emphasised that it is ready to go to war. Last October, President Xi Jinping called for troops to strengthen their preparedness for war as they held military drills around the self-governing island of Taiwan. But there is a difference between military preparedness and a readiness to go to war.
The Chinese embassy in Washington’s post quoted a foreign ministry statement in English from the previous day, which also accused the US of blaming China for the influx of the drug fentanyl.
“The fentanyl issue is a flimsy excuse to raise US tariffs on Chinese imports,” the foreign ministry spokesperson said.
“Intimidation does not scare us. Bullying does not work on us. Pressuring, coercion or threats are not the right way of dealing with China,” he added.
The US-China relationship is always one of the most contentious in the world. This post on X has been widely shared and could be used by the China hawks in Trump’s cabinet as evidence that Beijing is Washington’s biggest foreign policy and economic threat.
Officials in Beijing had been hopeful that US–China relations under Trump could get off to a more cordial start after he invited Xi to his inauguration. Trump also said the two leaders had “a great phone call” just a few days before he entered the White House.
There were reports that the two leaders were due to have another call last month. That did not happen.
Xi had already been battling persistently low consumption, a property crisis and unemployment.
China has pledged to pump billions of dollars into its ailing economy and its leaders unveiled the plan as thousands of delegates attend the National People’s Congress, a rubber-stamp parliament, which passes decisions already made behind closed doors.
China has the world’s second-largest military budget at $245 billion, but it is far smaller than that of the US. Beijing spends 1.6 per cent of Gross Domestic Product (GDP) on its military, far less than the US or Russia, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. However, analysts believe China downplays how much it spends on defence.
