Supreme Court allows Trump to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the government to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid that President Donald Trump moved to cancel through a pocket rescission last month, in a 6-3 ruling that blocked a lower court order requiring the funds to be dispersed.

The funds, congressionally appropriated for development and diplomacy programs, were earmarked for USAID and the State Department and were to flow to nonprofit groups and foreign governments. Roughly $3.2 billion in USAID development assistance, about $322 million from the USAID-State Department Democracy Fund and about $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations were at issue. A core group of nonprofit organizations and overseas partners sued to block the cut, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the Journalism Development Network, the Center for Victims of Torture and the Global Health Council.

The majority said the potential harms to the executive branch’s conduct of foreign affairs outweighed the potential harm to the recipients. It did not address the broader question of the president’s power to unilaterally impound funding previously approved by Congress. Chief Justice John Roberts had issued an emergency stay earlier this month, temporarily pausing the district court’s order so the case could be reviewed by the justices.

Advocates for the president argued the ruling preserves executive authority to set policy and reassess spending in light of national priorities. A White House Budget Office spokesperson framed the decision as a victory for presidential prerogative, noting that it restores the president’s ability to implement his policy agenda. The court’s decision, while narrow, underscores the ongoing tension between the executive and legislative branches over control of federal purse strings.

In dissent, Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson warned that the ruling lets the executive stop funding that Congress allocated, a result they argued conflicts with the separation of powers. They stressed that Congress remains the branch with authority to control spending and that the decision could invite more unilateral actions in the future.

The case centers on a procedure known as a pocket rescission, which the president proposed late in the fiscal year. The move would take effect even if lawmakers rejected the rescission, because the fiscal year ends Sept. 30. It has not been used by a president in nearly half a century. The funds were tied to the nonprofit groups and to foreign governments that were funding or implementing programs abroad.

Ali, a Biden appointee who previously ruled that Congress would have to approve the rescission for the money to be withheld, remained the central figure in the lower court decision. He wrote that the Impoundment Control Act requires congressional action to trigger a rescission, not simply a presidential transmission of a message.

The administration notified Congress of the pocket rescission last month, informing House Speaker Mike Johnson that more than $4 billion in foreign aid would be canceled, including roughly $3.2 billion in USAID development assistance, $322 million from the Democracy Fund and $521 million in State Department contributions. The administration argued the move was necessary to align spending with policy priorities.

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not resolve the broader constitutional question of whether a president can unilaterally withhold or rescind appropriated funds in the future. It remains to be seen how Congress might respond and whether lawmakers will seek clarifying legislation or additional limitations on executive power over foreign aid.

The decision could have lasting implications for how foreign assistance is managed between the White House and Congress. It leaves room for subsequent challenges and potential legislative action, but it also signals that the Court does not view impoundment as an open-ended tool for the executive branch when Congress has already appropriated money.

The White House and supporters of the president have pointed to the ruling as an affirmation of presidential prerogative, while critics say it could erode congressional control over the purse and weaken legislative checks on foreign-policy decisions. As lawmakers debate the proper balance of power, the court’s decision will likely play a central role in the ongoing debate over executive spending authority in foreign affairs.