On a Thursday evening in Washington, D.C. more than a dozen lawyers sat inside a courtroom at the E. Barrett Prettyman United States Court House for hearing in front of Judge Amir H. Ali. After a four-hour long proceeding, judge Ali issued a directive. The federal government had four days to pay plaintiff organizations that had sued the federal government for money they say they were owned. Organizations say they were owed a combined $2 billion for work that had already been completed.

The story began when the Trump administration announced an executive order with the intended goal of dismantling the United States Agency for International Aid, or USAID, an organization that focuses on humanitarian aid around the globe. The administration expressed concerns about how U.S. dollars were being spent abroad. The administration said it reserved the right to review, then cut-off spending in cases it deems fit.

But several organizations that worked directly with USAID sued. They argued in court that the abrupt closure of programs and cut in funding caused irreparable harm to workers and vulnerable people who relied on their services. The organizations also petitioned a court to force the federal government to pay those organizations for work they’d already completed, but did not receive payments for.

On that Thursday evening inside the federal courthouse, the petitioners got their wish, and Judge Ali gave the federal government an order: All payments for work that organizations completed prior to February 13, 2025, must be paid by March 10, 2025 at 6 p.m. But the deadline has come and gone, and while some organizations have received sizable payments from the federal government, Scripps News has learned other organizations have received little or no money at all.

RELATED STORY | USAID workers abroad must return home by April, email says

Nick Sansone, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group, an organization that represents two parties in one of the USAID cases, said their client, Aids Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, was owed approximately $397,000, but no payment was received from the federal government as of the deadline. Journalism Development Network, Inc. is a second organization that’s also represented by the Public Citizen Litigation Group. Sansone says that client is owed approximately $1.25 million by the federal government for work that was completed prior to mid February, but the organization only received payment for a fraction of debt that was owed by the court mandated deadline.

On the other side of the spectrum, Scripps News has learned HIAS, an organization that provides vital resources to refugee communities — from relocation services, legal assistance, food and shelter — received a significant amount of money it was owed by the federal government by the court mandated deadline.

Mark Hetfield, president of the organization, said it received approximately $2.35 million of the $2.4 million it’s owed by the federal government for work the organization had already completed. But Hetfield says the Trump administration’s actions have damaged the trust many organizations had in the United States government.

“We've decided that they are just not a trustworthy partner anymore. The U.S. government is not a good partner,” said Hetfield. “They did not really evaluate which programs they were going to close. There was no careful thought that went into that.”

Monday, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio posted online that after a month-and-half review, the Trump administration is officially canceling 83% of USAID programs.

“The 5200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States,” Secretary Rubio wrote.

But Hetfield disagrees with Secretary Rubio’s assessment.

“They never inquired with us or any other parties as to any substantive questions about the program, other than trying to get assurances that we don't do Diversity Equity and Inclusion with government money. So no, there was no thought process that went into this,” said Hetfield. “There was no analysis that went into these decisions. This was really shooting first and then analyzing later.”

Monday, Judge Ali issued a written order which partially ruled in favor of plaintiff organizations that sued the federal government. The order said President Trump overstepped his authority when “... the Executive has unilaterally deemed that funds Congress appropriated for foreign aid will not be spent.”

Judge Ali also wrote, “The Executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place. In advancing this position, Defendants offer an unbridled view of Executive power that the Supreme Court has consistently rejected…”

But the judge stopped short of granting the plaintiff organizations’ request to force the federal government to restore USAID programs which have already been shuttered in the U.S. and abroad.

“Plaintiffs went too broad in asking court to stop defendants from 'terminating, furloughing, or placing personnel on administrative leave' and ordering them to 'restore the status quo as it existed before January 20, 2025,'” Judge Ali wrote.

RELATED STORY | Trump administration ordered to pay nearly $2B in USAID, State Department debts

In reaction to the mixed ruling, Lauren Batemen, lead counsel on the case and an attorney with Public Citizen Group, wrote, “Today’s decision affirms a basic principle of our Constitution: the president is not a king.” Bateman went on to say “But we are painfully aware that, without unwinding the mass termination of foreign assistance awards, winning on the constitutional issues does not avert the humanitarian disaster caused by the Trump Administration’s freeze on foreign assistance. And it does not undo the damage that the freeze has already inflicted on millions of vulnerable people across the world. Deaths will continue to mount.

Scripps News has contacted attorneys with the Department of Justice. This story will be updated whenever a response is received.