The US Supreme Court has sided with the Trump administration, allowing it to withhold roughly $4 billion in foreign aid that was previously approved by Congress. This decision marks another win for President Trump in his efforts to exert greater control over federal spending.
The ruling extends a previous order that allows the administration to keep the funds frozen. The case revolves around billions of dollars in aid that Congress had already approved. Trump indicated last month that he would not spend the money, invoking a rarely used authority that was last utilized by a president approximately 50 years ago.
The Justice Department sought the Supreme Court's intervention after a US District Judge, Amir Ali, ruled that Trump's action was likely illegal and that Congress would need to approve the decision to withhold the funding. A federal appeals court declined to put Ali's ruling on hold, but Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked it on September 9, 2025. The full court has now indefinitely extended Roberts' order.
The Supreme Court's decision comes in the wake of a legal dispute between international aid groups and the administration that has been ongoing in the federal courts for several months. Judge Ali had previously ordered the Trump administration to allocate $10.5 billion in aid by the end of the fiscal year. While the administration stated it would spend $6.5 billion, it employed a "pocket rescission" tactic to claw back over $4 billion. This tactic involves a president submitting a request to Congress late in the budget year to not spend approved funds.
The court's conservative majority granted the administration's emergency appeal, with the three liberal justices dissenting. The majority stated that the law likely does not allow private groups to sue to enforce congressional appropriations and that the potential harm to the Executive's conduct of foreign affairs outweighs the potential harm faced by the respondents. Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, argued that the court should not have decided the case on its emergency docket, which involves shorter briefings and no oral arguments. She emphasized the importance of the separation of powers and the allocation of power between the Executive and Congress over public funds.
Critics of the decision argue that it undermines Congress's power of the purse, as the Constitution grants Congress the authority to control federal spending. There is little precedent for a president clawing back funds already approved by the legislative branch. The White House has stated that the "pocket rescission" tactic was last used in 1977. Administration lawyers argued that disbursing the funding would be contrary to US foreign policy. Trump has aimed to overhaul US foreign aid, cutting funding to the UN and largely dismantling the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
