Which foreign aid packages did the Trump administration approve that totaled billions?
Executive summary
The Trump administration both approved large military sales and sought to withhold or reallocate billions in congressionally appropriated foreign‑aid funding in 2025: the State Department says it approved nearly $12 billion in major foreign military sales to Israel and used emergency authorities to expedite about $4 billion in military aid [1]. Simultaneously the administration froze or sought to block roughly $4.9–$5 billion and other billions appropriated for global health and humanitarian programs, prompting federal judges and appeals to the Supreme Court [2] [3] [4].
1. Big weapons deals to Israel: a clear, documented tally
The State Department reports that the administration approved nearly $12 billion in major foreign military sales (FMS) to Israel and invoked emergency authorities to speed delivery of about $4 billion in military assistance, a concrete set of approvals that together account for billions in U.S. commitments [1].
2. Health and humanitarian aid: billions appropriated then frozen
Courts and reporting show a separate, opposite flow: Congress appropriated large sums for global health and humanitarian programs that the administration paused or sought to withhold. A federal judge ordered the government to release “billions of dollars” in congressionally approved aid, and reporting cites Trump’s statement that he would not spend $4.9 billion — a figure reflected repeatedly in coverage of the freeze [2]. Legal filings and court rulings reference injunctions ordering payment of nearly $2 billion to humanitarian partners and identify tens of billions in appropriations at issue [4].
3. The Supreme Court fights and temporary extensions: contested authority
The administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court for intervention after a district court found the withholding likely unlawful; the high court later extended orders allowing the government to continue blocking nearly $5 billion in aid while litigation proceeded, underscoring the legal uncertainty around the executive’s pause [4] [3].
4. Agency reorganization and policy framing: the administration’s stated rationale
President Trump issued an executive order to “reevaluate and realign” U.S. foreign aid, and the State Department announced a pause consistent with that directive, framing the moves as a review to ensure aid aligns with presidential foreign‑policy priorities [5] [6]. This policy posture explains the simultaneous push to accelerate military assistance to some partners while suspending other appropriated assistance.
5. Global health funding particularly exposed: concrete numbers cited
Multiple sources flag global health and HIV/AIDS programs as central to the dispute: reporting notes nearly $4 billion for USAID global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV/AIDS programs were among funds the administration had paused, and KFF documents the scale of U.S. commitments to multilateral efforts such as the Global Fund and PEPFAR [2] [7] [8].
6. Competing narratives: efficiency vs. humanitarian impact
Administration statements and White House policy materials present the freeze and realignment as correcting waste and ensuring alignment with U.S. interests [6] [5]. Critics and health experts warn the pause and restructuring risk “blocking billions” for lifesaving programs and could cause severe public‑health consequences; academic and NGO analyses quantify potential human costs and program disruptions [9] [10] [11].
7. What the sources do and do not say
Sources provide specific dollar figures: nearly $12 billion in approved FMS to Israel and about $4 billion expedited military aid [1]; a refusal to spend $4.9 billion noted in court reporting and press coverage [2]; court orders and filings reference nearly $2 billion owed to humanitarian partners and “tens of billions” of appropriations implicated [4]. Available sources do not mention a definitive final accounting of every individual foreign‑aid package the administration approved or fully implemented across all agencies — not found in current reporting.
8. Why this matters: politics, law and impact converge
The situation mixes foreign‑policy decisions, statutory appropriations, and judicial oversight: executive claims of discretion collide with congressional appropriations and court orders, producing high‑stakes litigation and real-world disruptions to health and humanitarian programs [4] [3] [2]. Readers should treat headline numbers as context‑dependent: some billions are approved arms sales (documented by State), other billions are congressionally appropriated aid that the administration has frozen and is litigating (documented by courts and reporting) [1] [2] [4].
Limitations: this analysis relies solely on the provided reporting and government statements; a comprehensive ledger of every approved or withheld package across all agencies is not available in these sources (not found in current reporting).