Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory In Foreign Aid Fight
The Supreme Court handed President Donald J. Trump a major victory Friday, allowing his administration to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid that he moved to cancel last month through a rarely used budgetary maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.”
In a 6–3 decision, the justices overturned a lower court ruling that had ordered the funds to be released, granting the White House an emergency appeal.
“This is a massive victory in restoring the President’s authority to implement his policies,” a spokesperson for the 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 reasoned that “harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents,” which included a group of progressive-aligned nonprofits such as the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and the Global Health Council.
At issue is Trump’s unprecedented decision to deploy a “pocket rescission” — a request to Congress to cancel appropriated funds submitted so close to the end of the fiscal year that, under federal budget law, the money automatically expires regardless of congressional action. It is the first time in nearly 50 years a president has invoked the maneuver.
Trump’s proposal targeted $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 State Department contributions to international organizations. Much of the funding was earmarked for nonprofit organizations now suing to stop the freeze, along with foreign governments.
Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta Ali, a Biden appointee, ruled that the Trump administration could not withhold the money absent explicit congressional approval, arguing that the Impoundment Control Act required legislative action for a rescission to take effect. The Supreme Court’s order overrides that decision for now, though it does not settle the larger constitutional fight.
The case highlights an ongoing battle over presidential authority in shaping foreign aid and spending priorities. Trump has long criticized billions in taxpayer dollars flowing overseas while domestic challenges mount at home, a stance that resonates strongly with his base.
The court’s liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, siding with the nonprofits and foreign aid advocates.
The ruling comes the same week the Court agreed to hear another major separation-of-powers case, this one testing whether President Trump can remove members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. The dispute could redefine the independence of federal agencies and potentially overturn a 1935 precedent that insulated commissioners from presidential dismissal.
In the interim, the justices permitted Trump to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case proceeds, with oral arguments scheduled for December. Kagan again dissented, warning that the order gives the president “full control” over independent agencies Congress intended to shield from politics.
With these two cases moving forward, the Supreme Court appears poised to weigh heavily on the scope of executive authority in Trump’s second term — decisions that could reset the balance between Congress, federal agencies, and the presidency for years to come.