Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory In Foreign Aid Fight

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a major win for President Donald J. Trump on Friday, allowing his administration to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid that he moved to cancel last month using a rarely invoked procedural tool known as a “pocket rescission.”

In a 6–3 decision, the high court granted the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, blocking a lower court order that would have forced the immediate release of the funds. The ruling effectively pauses the disbursement of billions in taxpayer dollars while the legal fight continues.

“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.”

In siding with the administration, the majority concluded that the executive branch’s interests outweigh the claims raised by the challengers. The justices found the “harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents,” which include groups such as the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and the Global Health Council, according to The Post.

Notably, the court did not rule on the broader constitutional question of whether President Trump can unilaterally impound funds appropriated by Congress, leaving that issue unresolved for now.

The dispute stems from Trump’s recent notification to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he intended to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid, including $3.2 billion allocated to U.S. Agency for International Development programs, $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations.

The maneuver, known as a “pocket rescission,” was transmitted to Congress just days before the fiscal year ended on September 30, ensuring it would take effect automatically without requiring congressional approval. It marked the first use of the tactic in nearly 50 years, highlighting the administration’s aggressive effort to rein in overseas spending.

Much of the frozen funding was earmarked for nonprofit organizations that are now suing the Trump administration, as well as for foreign governments.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta Ali, a Biden appointee, ruled against the administration, claiming the president lacked authority to withhold the funds absent congressional action.

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

The nonprofit plaintiffs argued the funding freeze violated federal law and endangered critical humanitarian programs overseas. On Friday, however, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority rejected that argument at this stage of the case.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the ruling.

The decision comes amid a broader series of high-stakes separation-of-powers disputes involving President Trump. Earlier in the week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case addressing whether the president may remove members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause—a challenge that could dramatically reshape the independence of federal agencies.

In a brief order, the justices allowed Trump to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case proceeds. Oral arguments are scheduled for December, and the stay permitting her removal will remain in place until a final ruling is issued.

The case will revisit whether statutory limits on removing FTC commissioners violate the Constitution’s separation of powers and whether the court’s 1935 precedent upholding those protections should be overturned. It will also consider whether lower courts can block presidential removals of agency officials.

Once again, the court’s left wing dissented. Justice Kagan warned the decision gives the president sweeping authority over agencies Congress sought to insulate from political pressure.

“He may now remove — so says the majority, though Congress said differently — any member he wishes, for any reason or no reason at all. And he may thereby extinguish the agencies’ bipartisanship and independence,” she wrote.

Together, the rulings signal a judiciary increasingly willing to reassert executive authority—particularly under President Trump’s second-term agenda—while curbing efforts by courts and activist groups to override the elected president’s policy decisions.