Judge Stunned by Donald Trump’s Lawyers Arguing With Themselves

A federal judge has severely rebuked Donald Trump’s attorneys for attempting to alter a litigation schedule they themselves established months ago.

The court, in an August 25 order, said the defense could not now object to a process they had proposed, rejecting their bid to alter the course of the case. U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali made clear that Trump’s lawyers could not reverse their positions after shaping the very schedule they now opposed, stating, “It would violate basic notions of fair play to grant the relief requested.”

The ruling, issued in Washington, D.C., highlights judicial frustration with inconsistent arguments that appear aimed at delaying proceedings.

Why It Matters

The ruling matters because it curbs one of Trump’s key legal strategies—delaying cases through shifting procedural arguments. By holding his lawyers to the very schedule they proposed, Judge Ali reinforced the principle that courts demand consistency and fairness from litigants. The decision also ensures that nonprofits challenging Trump’s foreign aid freeze are not subjected to further delays, keeping the case on track to resolve a broader constitutional fight over Congress’s control of federal spending.

What To Know

The dispute centers on the schedule of proceedings in one of Trump’s pending cases.

After initially agreeing to the framework for how filings and hearings should proceed, Trump’s attorneys returned to court asking for equitable relief to delay or alter that schedule.

The judge concluded that because the defense had not pursued a stay at the appropriate time and had, in fact, proposed the very sequence they were now contesting, they could not credibly demand a change.

The court’s reference to “basic notions of fair play” highlights a principle of equity: relief is discretionary, and it is often denied when a party’s conduct appears inconsistent. Judges rely on the expectation that litigants will maintain coherence in their legal positions. The concept of ‘judicial estoppel’ thereby prevents parties from shifting arguments to gain advantage in different phases of a case.

The Case

The case itself is one of several Trump faces with the underlying issues procedural, rather than substantive: the fight is over timing and process, not yet about the merits of the claims. Still, the court’s rebuke illustrates how Trump’s defense team is encountering obstacles in its broader effort to slow down or reshape litigation schedules.

The dispute stems from Trump’s January 20, 2025, executive order freezing most foreign aid. Nonprofit organizations sued, arguing the freeze violated Congress’s constitutional power over appropriations.

On March 10, U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali partially granted an injunction requiring the administration to release certain funds.

Litigation has continued over how and when compliance should occur.

Trump’s lawyers initially proposed a schedule that anticipated appeals and gave the government until September 30 to obligate funds. But after losing in district court and facing further litigation, they sought to delay that same schedule.

Shifting Strategies

Judge Ali refused, pointing out the contradiction. He noted that the defense had filed an appeal in March but declined to seek a stay at that time. Instead, they urged the court to adopt a timeline beginning August 15, which they said would allow for appellate review and still leave “sufficient time to obligate the balances.”

Months later, they then asked to halt obligations under the very timeline they had endorsed.

“Defendants cannot credibly claim irreparable harm from compliance they themselves proposed,” Ali wrote, rejecting claims that logistical burdens justified delay, and observed: “The reasons asserted for a stay conflict with Defendants’ own litigation decisions.”

This strategy is consistent with Trump’s broader legal approach of seeking delays, but it left them in the awkward position of fighting against their own earlier plan.

A Self-Inflicted Emergency

Ali emphasized that any urgency was of the defense’s own making. “To the extent there is any ’emergency’ here, it is one Defendants created through their own strategic choices,” he wrote. Having bypassed the chance to seek a stay earlier, the lawyers could not return to court claiming prejudice.

This reasoning reflects a broader judicial concern with consistency. Courts depend on parties to advance positions they can stand behind. Sudden reversals, judges warn, risk turning litigation into gamesmanship.

What People Are Saying

Judge Ali in his Order on Motion to Stay of August 25, 2025, said: “But in a circumstance like this—where a party not only declined to seek a stay pending appeal five months ago but also, in the meantime, proposed that the proceedings unfold in the very way they now object to—it would violate basic notions of fair play to grant the equitable relief requested.”

Global Health said: “The harm here goes to the very subsistence of the organizations, many of which are on the brink of shuttering entirely, and poses an existential threat to the viability of their humanitarian missions.”

Virginia Law Review says: “Judicial estoppel … prevents a party from taking a position contradictory to a position which that party adopted previously.”

Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy and David Souter, U.S. Supreme Court, in the matter of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992), agreed that: “The very concept of the rule of law … requires such continuity over time that a respect for precedent is … indispensable.”

What Happens Next

The case will proceed under the timeline Trump’s lawyers originally proposed, with the government required to continue preparations to obligate funds before the September 30 deadline.

The defense may still appeal, but higher courts rarely disturb a trial judge’s discretionary denial of equitable relief. That means the litigation stays on track, and the central constitutional question—whether the president can override Congress’s control of federal spending—will move forward without further delay.