Supreme Court Keeps Trump Foreign Aid Freeze, Extending $4.9 Billion Hold

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Friday extended an emergency order that allows the Trump administration to keep nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid frozen, handing the White House another victory in a high-stakes dispute over presidential power. The unsigned order came with the court’s conservative majority granting the administration’s emergency appeal, while three liberal justices dissented.

Trump has said he would not spend the money, invoking a pocket rescission last used by a president roughly 50 years ago. The Justice Department sought the high court’s intervention after U.S. District Judge Amir H. Ali ruled that the action was likely illegal and that Congress would have to approve withholding the funds. The federal appeals court in Washington had declined to stay Ali’s ruling, but Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked it on Sept. 9, and the full court extended that order. The administration argues that the move is a lawful use of foreign-affairs authority and that the money can be held pending further litigation.

The case has unfolded as part of a string of emergency rulings the Court has issued in recent years that have helped the administration shield certain actions from immediate legal scrutiny. The court has previously allowed steps that cleared the way to strip legal protections from migrants, fire federal employees, oust transgender members of the military and remove the heads of independent agencies, all through emergency appeals instead of full opinions.

Trump’s rescission notice, issued Aug. 28, argued that Congress should not fund the money and that inaction would effectively permit withholding. Under federal law, Congress would have to approve the rescission within 45 days or the money must be spent. The White House has maintained that the budget window will close before the 45-day clock runs out, creating a de facto hold on the funds.

The case remains unresolved on the merits, and Ali has signaled that his ruling was not the final word. In August, a U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit threw out an injunction requiring the money be spent but did not dismiss the suit entirely. The judge wrote that the dispute raises questions of immense legal and practical importance about whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds.

Advocacy groups warned that continuing freezes could have humanitarian repercussions, reducing access to food aid and development programs for vulnerable communities. Legal experts said the decision further underscores tensions between the presidency and Congress over funding and oversight, and more rulings could follow.