BREAKING — Supreme Court Reads Verdict in Trump Case
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant victory to President Donald J. Trump in his ongoing effort to rein in federal spending, allowing the administration to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid payments through a rarely used executive maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.”
In a 6-3 decision, the Court sided with the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, halting a lower court order that would have forced the immediate release of funds already approved by Congress. The ruling marks a decisive moment in the constitutional clash over executive authority and the scope of presidential power in foreign affairs.
A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget celebrated the decision, stating, “This is a huge win for restoring the President’s power to carry out his policies. Left-wing groups can no longer take over the president’s agenda.”
The majority of the justices agreed that “the harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.” According to The Post, the respondents include advocacy groups such as the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and the Global Health Council — organizations that had been designated to receive portions of the funding and are now challenging the freeze.
While the Court permitted the temporary hold on the funds, it did not resolve the broader constitutional question: whether President Trump possesses the authority to “impound” congressionally approved funds without legislative consent.
Earlier, President Trump informed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he intended to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid, including $3.2 billion tied to programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations.
The administration’s request was structured as a “pocket rescission” — submitted so close to the September 30 fiscal year deadline that the funds would expire automatically if Congress failed to act in time. The maneuver, largely dormant for nearly five decades, effectively sidesteps legislative inaction and allows the executive branch to halt spending that it deems inconsistent with its policy objectives.
Notably, portions of the frozen funding were earmarked for nonprofit groups currently suing the administration, as well as for foreign governments.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta Ali, a Biden appointee, ruled against the administration, asserting that the executive branch could not withhold the funds absent congressional approval. Ali wrote, “So far, Congress has not responded to the President’s proposal to rescind the funds.” “And the [Impoundment Control Act] makes it clear that it is congressional action, not the President sending a special message, that ends the previous appropriations.”
Opponents of the freeze argued that the pocket rescission violated federal law and jeopardized life-saving programs overseas. However, the Supreme Court’s majority signaled that the executive branch’s constitutional authority in foreign policy matters carries substantial weight.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.
In a related development underscoring the Court’s willingness to revisit long-standing limits on executive authority, the justices also agreed this week to hear a case addressing whether President Trump can remove members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause — a dispute that could reshape the balance of power between the presidency and so-called “independent” agencies.
The Court issued a temporary order permitting President Trump to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case proceeds. That stay will remain in effect until the Court delivers its final decision, expected in December.
At the heart of the case is whether statutory protections shielding FTC commissioners from removal violate the Constitution’s separation of powers doctrine — and whether the Court should reconsider its 1935 precedent upholding those restrictions.
The three liberal justices again dissented. Justice Kagan warned that the ruling grants the president sweeping authority over agencies Congress sought to insulate from politics. She wrote that the order effectively gives the president “full control” over independent agencies.
“He can now fire any member he wants, for any reason or no reason at all,” says the majority, even though Congress said otherwise. She wrote, “And he may do this to end the agencies’ independence and bipartisanship.”
For President Trump, now serving his second term, the rulings represent more than procedural wins. They reflect a broader judicial reconsideration of executive authority — particularly in matters of foreign policy and agency accountability — and signal that the Court is increasingly receptive to arguments rooted in constitutional separation of powers and the primacy of the presidency in executing the nation’s laws.