Supreme Court Grants Trump Major Win in $4 Billion Foreign Aid Freeze

In a major political and legal victory for former President Donald Trump, the U.S. Supreme Court has granted his administration permission to halt more than $4 billion in foreign aid, endorsing an aggressive use of executive authority known as a “pocket rescission.”

In a 6–3 decision, the Court sided with the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, overturning a lower court’s order that had required the funds to be released. The ruling allows the government to temporarily freeze aid payments that Trump sought to cancel last month, marking a rare instance of the high court backing a broad assertion of presidential power over foreign spending.

Restoring Executive Authority

The decision, described by administration officials as a major affirmation of executive authority, drew sharp reactions across Washington.
“This is a massive victory in restoring the President’s authority to implement his policies,” a spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget told The New York Post. “Left-wing groups’ ability to seize control of the president’s agenda has been shut down.”

The majority opinion found that blocking the rescission could interfere with the Executive Branch’s ability to conduct foreign affairs, stating that “the harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign policy appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.”

Those respondents included several nonprofit and advocacy groups — among them the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the Center for Victims of Torture, the Journalism Development Network, and the Global Health Council — which had sued to prevent the funding freeze.

A Rare Presidential Move

At the center of the dispute is Trump’s unprecedented use of the pocket rescission, a rarely invoked budgetary maneuver that allows the president to propose canceling funds already approved by Congress. If such a proposal is submitted within the final 45 days of a fiscal year and Congress does not act before the deadline, the funds can effectively be withheld once the fiscal year ends.

Trump formally notified House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) last month that he intended to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid allocations, including:

• $3.2 billion from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs,

• $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and

• $521 million in contributions to various international organizations.

It was the first use of a pocket rescission in nearly 50 years, signaling an aggressive interpretation of executive power over federal spending. Critics argue that it amounts to unilateral impoundment — something Congress restricted following the Nixon era through the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which limits the president’s ability to withhold appropriated funds without congressional consent.

Lower Court Rebuffed the Move

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta Ali, a Biden appointee, ruled that the administration could not block the release of the funds without explicit congressional approval. His decision referenced the Impoundment Control Act, emphasizing that Congress must act affirmatively for any rescission to take effect.

“To date, Congress has not responded to the President’s rescission proposal by rescinding the funds,” Judge Ali wrote. “And the statute is clear that it is congressional action — not the President’s transmission of a special message — that triggers rescission of the earlier appropriations.”

The nonprofits involved in the lawsuit argued that the funding freeze violated federal law and threatened critical international programs addressing health crises, democracy promotion, and humanitarian assistance.

The Court’s Conservative Majority Prevails

Friday’s Supreme Court ruling reversed that decision, granting the administration’s emergency request to maintain the funding freeze. The Court, however, stopped short of ruling on the broader constitutional issue — whether the president can permanently impound congressionally approved funds without explicit legislative approval.

The three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, arguing that the majority’s order undermines congressional control over the federal purse and weakens the system of checks and balances.

Parallel Fight Over Presidential Power

The foreign aid ruling comes amid another major constitutional clash involving presidential authority. Earlier in the same week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a separate case that could determine whether Trump — or any president — can remove members of independent federal agencies, such as the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), without cause.

The Court also granted Trump’s request to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while that case is pending, allowing the president to act before the final ruling. The justices will hear oral arguments in December.

The case challenges a long-standing precedent established in 1935, which protects members of independent agencies from being fired without cause — a safeguard meant to ensure political neutrality and bipartisan governance. Trump’s legal team argues that such protections violate the separation of powers by restricting the president’s constitutional authority to oversee the executive branch.

Liberal Justices Warn of Expanding Presidential Power

Justice Elena Kagan, writing in dissent, warned that the Court’s orders in both cases risk giving the president unchecked control over government operations.
“He may now remove — so says the majority, though Congress said differently — any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all,” Kagan wrote. “And he may thereby extinguish the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence.”

Her warning echoes growing concern among legal scholars that the Court’s conservative majority is steadily redefining the limits of executive power — tilting the balance between the branches of government in favor of the presidency.

A Pivotal Moment for Executive Power

Between the foreign aid freeze and the upcoming FTC case, the Supreme Court appears poised to further clarify — and potentially expand — presidential authority. For Trump, the latest ruling represents not only a tactical victory over his political opponents but also a symbolic reaffirmation of his long-standing argument that presidents must have greater flexibility to act decisively, even in the face of congressional opposition.

As debates over the separation of powers continue to shape the political landscape, the Court’s rulings may mark a turning point in how future presidents wield authority over spending, diplomacy, and the federal bureaucracy.