The Supreme Court’s recent 5-4 decision on March 5, 2025, to uphold a district court injunction forcing the Trump administration to disburse nearly $2 billion in USAID funds has ignited a fierce debate over the boundaries of Article II powers and the potential for a constitutional crisis. President Trump, exercising his executive authority under Article II, ordered a 90-day pause on foreign aid shortly after his inauguration, aligning with his “America First” agenda. However, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, overseeing a challenge from nonprofits and contractors, issued an order compelling immediate payment for work completed before the freeze, arguing the president’s action violated congressional spending authority. The Supreme Court’s refusal to grant the administration’s emergency appeal—despite dissent from Justices Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh—raises questions about whether the judiciary is overstepping into executive prerogative, challenging the president’s constitutional power to direct foreign policy and manage executive agencies.
 

This standoff threatens a constitutional crisis by pitting the judiciary against the executive in a way that could undermine the separation of powers. The administration, through Acting Solicitor General Sarah Harris, argued that the district court’s order infringes on the president’s broad Article II authority over foreign affairs, a domain historically afforded significant deference by the courts. Justice Alito’s dissent underscored this, warning that a single district judge “lacking jurisdiction” should not wield “unchecked power” to force the government to spend billions against the president’s directive, calling it “judicial hubris.” By declining to overrule the injunction, the Supreme Court risks signaling that lower courts can unilaterally thwart executive policy, potentially paralyzing the president’s ability to govern. This tension echoes past crises, like the 1930s clashes over New Deal policies, where judicial overreach prompted threats to the Court’s structure—foreshadowing a possible escalation if Trump and his allies perceive this as an existential challenge to executive power.
 

The practical stakes amplify the constitutional stakes: the USAID funds, supporting humanitarian aid in over 130 countries, have been frozen, leaving contractors unpaid and programs halted, with thousands of jobs lost and global relief efforts in chaos. Critics of the Court’s decision, including the administration, argue it disregards the feasibility of compliance—disbursing $2 billion in days is logistically daunting—and ignores Trump’s ongoing review to align aid with national interests. Conversely, the majority, including Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Barrett joining the liberals, instructed Judge Ali to clarify compliance obligations, suggesting a middle ground. Yet, this fails to resolve the core issue: if the judiciary can override the president’s Article II powers without clear constitutional grounding, it risks not just a legal crisis but a governance one, where executive authority is perpetually at the mercy of district judges. With a preliminary injunction hearing looming, the dispute could return to the Supreme Court, testing whether it will reinforce executive power or cement a precedent that invites further judicial encroachments.