Supreme Court extends Trump administration's $5 billion foreign aid freeze amid legal challenge

The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday extended an order that allows the Trump administration to continue blocking nearly $5 billion in congressionally appropriated foreign funds, preserving a temporary hold as a legal challenge over the president’s authority to withhold money proceeds. The vote was 6-3, with the three liberal justices in dissent. The ruling keeps in place the mechanism that has kept the funds from flowing while the underlying dispute works its way through the courts.

The Department of Justice had asked the high court for an emergency appeal after a district court judge ruled the administration’s decision to withhold the funds was likely illegal and that Congress would need to approve the action. District Judge Amir Ali said the case raised questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds. The court’s Friday action offered a temporary shield for the administration as it defends its position in the broader dispute over presidential control of money appropriated by Congress.

The administration invoked a pocket rescission, a rarely used tool that allows the president to submit to Congress a request to hold approved funds near the end of the fiscal year. Under federal law, Congress must approve the rescission within 45 days or the money must be spent. Because the budget year would be winding down in this case, White House officials argued that congressional inaction effectively blocks the funds. The move marked the first use of a pocket rescission in about 50 years. The Friday ruling extended a temporary block that Chief Justice John Roberts had put in place on Sept. 9, signaling that the court viewed the question as one of executive power in foreign policy rather than a finished adjudication of the merits.

In a partial endorsement of the government’s stance, the majority noted the president’s foreign-policy prerogative as a relevant factor, while cautioning that the decision was not a final ruling on the matter. The justices stressed that the case still requires full briefing and argument on the ultimate legality of withholding funds that Congress had approved for foreign aid, and that the court’s decision should not be construed as a broad endorsement of unilateral spending prerogatives.

At stake were funds slated for United Nations peacekeeping operations and democracy-promotion initiatives abroad. The administration argued that reallocating or withholding the money aligned with U.S. foreign policy and national priorities, while critics warned that restricting these funds could undermine international commitments and harm recipient countries. The administration has described the funds as contrary to U.S. foreign policy so withholding them would better reflect the administration’s policy direction. Critics say the impact would ripple through international organizations and long-running democracy programs, complicating U.N. missions and civil-society efforts in fragile states.

Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, stating that the effect of the ruling is to preclude the funds from reaching their intended recipients—“not just now but for all time,” in her words. The dissent warned that the decision could set a precedent allowing the executive branch to shield congressionally appropriated funds from execution over the long term, bypassing Congress’s spending authority. The dissents underscored concerns about the separation of powers and the potential erosion of fiscal accountability when funds are blocked without a final judicial determination on legality.

The case underscores ongoing tensions in U.S. politics over how much authority a president should wield to shape foreign aid and whether Congress should maintain a robust check on those decisions. Proponents of a more assertive executive posture argue that foreign policy must adapt to rapid geopolitical shifts and national priorities, while opponents caution that unilateral withholding of funds can undermine international commitments and degrade U.S. credibility abroad. The dispute’s outcome will influence not only specific foreign-aid programs but also the broader framework of how presidential spending power interacts with congressional appropriations in times of geopolitical contention.

Overall, Friday’s action preserves the status quo while the legal process continues, keeping the money on hold pending further judicial review. The court’s decision does not settle the broader issues at stake but instead manages the immediate question of whether the funds must remain blocked during litigation. Observers will watch closely as the parties file further briefs and prepare for arguments about the underlying legality of the withholding and the proper role of Congress in approving or denying this use of funding.

This article draws on reporting from the Associated Press and Reuters, with ongoing coverage of U.S. politics and the judiciary's evolving role in national policy.