“I am stunned,” declares Justice Samuel Alito, dissenting in the Supreme Court’s ruling against President Trump over spending foreign aid. It could signal tougher than expected sledding in Mr. Trump’s campaign against federal waste, and comes as senators are asserting a role in decisions to cut spending. The high court’s move paves the way for the release of $2 billion in already authorized aid, a reminder of the limits of Mr. Trump’s attempt to reform by decree. 

The five to four ruling comes in Department of State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition. It suggests that the high court, despite its landmark ruling last year on presidential immunity in Trump v. United States, has a wary eye on the constitutional guardrails that circumscribe executive branch power. Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Amy Coney Barrett joined the high court’s three liberal justices in what amounts to a curb on presidential power.

The dispute dates back to Mr. Trump’s first day in office, when he ordered a “pause” on all pending executive branch expenditures, per the Department of Government Efficiency’s efforts “to save taxpayers money.” Two foreign aid contractors, the Global Health Council and the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, later sued for payment of some $2 billion for work already performed under the aegis of the United States Agency for International Development.

A federal district judge, Amir Ali, who had been nominated by President Biden, ordered that Mr. Trump was obligated to pay the contractors. The judge averred that President Trump, despite his executive order, had “to honor the terms of contracts, grants, cooperative agreements, loans, and other federal foreign assistance awards that were in existence as of January 19, 2025.” The spending, after all, had been appropriated by Congress.

Mr. Trump appealed to the riders of the District of Columbia Circuit, who declined to halt the district court order. Today’s action by the high court largely upholds Judge Ali’s decision. The high court’s move would appear to call into question other efforts by Mr. Trump and DOGE to “pause” or halt federal spending that was appropriated by the legislature, in a case that could have implications extending far beyond the $2 billion in this case.

While the high court’s order today is brief — but a paragraph — Justice Alito’s dissent, joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, dilates at greater length on the dispute. “Does a single district-court judge who likely lacks jurisdiction have the unchecked power to compel the Government of the United States to pay out (and probably lose forever) 2 billion taxpayer dollars?” Justice Alito asks.

“The answer to that question should be an emphatic ‘No,’” he concludes, “but a majority of this Court apparently thinks otherwise.” Justice Alito appears skeptical of Judge Ali’s reasoning that the aid contractors were “likely to succeed” in proving that Mr. Trump breached the Administrative Procedure Act when he froze the federal funding. Judge Ali subsequently “grew frustrated” by Mr. Trump’s delay in disbursing the dollars, Justice Alito reckons.

That prompted Judge Ali to set a deadline for Mr. Trump to disgorge the spondulix, Justice Alito avers, in a move that “brushed aside the Government’s argument that sovereign immunity barred this enforcement order.” That argument failed to sway a majority at the high court, though. Justice Alito laments that it “imposes a $2 billion penalty on American taxpayers,” calling it “a most unfortunate misstep that rewards an act of judicial hubris.”

Yet the high court’s move is a constitutional caution that speeding ahead on spending cuts absent the okay of Congress could be its own form of hubris. Elon Musk and Mr. Trump’s DOGE cuts to wasteful spending are vital. Senators today stressed to Mr. Musk the need for their input on the spending cuts so that they’re made in accordance with the law. As Senator Graham puts it: “We need to capture this in the legislative process to make it real.”