Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory in Foreign Aid Power Struggle
The U.S. Supreme Court delivered a significant win for President Donald J. Trump, allowing his administration to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid funds he moved to cancel last month through an uncommon procedural tool known as a “pocket rescission.”
In a 6–3 ruling, the Court granted the Trump administration’s emergency request, temporarily blocking a lower court order that would have forced the release of funds previously approved by Congress. The decision reinforces executive authority in matters of foreign policy while litigation 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 Court’s majority concluded that the “harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.” Those respondents include a collection of progressive nonprofit organizations, among them the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and the Global Health Council, according to the Post.
While the ruling halts enforcement of the lower court’s order, it stops short of resolving the broader constitutional question of whether President Trump possesses unilateral authority to impound funds that Congress has already appropriated.
The dispute arose after President Trump formally notified House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of his intent to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid commitments. The proposed rescission included $3.2 billion earmarked for 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.
Because the rescission request was transmitted to Congress so close to the close of the fiscal year on September 30, it was structured to take effect automatically—regardless of whether lawmakers acted. The maneuver marks the first use of a pocket rescission by a president in nearly half a century.
Notably, much of the frozen funding was designated 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, asserting that the executive branch could not withhold the funds absent congressional approval.
“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 challengers argued that the funding freeze violated federal law and threatened critical humanitarian initiatives overseas. That position failed to persuade the Supreme Court’s majority, though it was embraced by the Court’s liberal bloc.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from Friday’s ruling.
The decision follows another notable move by the Court earlier this week involving executive authority. On Monday, the justices agreed to hear a separate case addressing whether President Trump may remove members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause—a challenge that could reshape the balance of power between the presidency and so-called “independent” federal agencies.
In a brief order, the Court 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 effect until a final ruling is issued.
That case directly questions whether statutory protections limiting the president’s ability to dismiss FTC commissioners violate the separation of powers, and whether the Court’s 1935 precedent upholding such protections should be overturned. It also examines whether lower courts have authority to block removals of executive appointees, as they have attempted to do in several Trump-related cases.
Once again, the Court’s left wing dissented. Writing for the minority, Justice Kagan warned that the order effectively grants 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.