In a dramatic turn of events this week, a federal judge has ordered the Trump administration to release $11.5 billion in foreign aid funds that Congress had already approved but which the administration attempted to withhold. The preliminary injunction, issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington on September 3, 2025, marks a significant legal rebuke to the administration’s efforts to redirect or freeze foreign assistance just weeks before the funds were set to expire at the end of the fiscal month.
The dispute centers on the Trump administration’s use of a rarely invoked tactic known as a “pocket rescission.” On August 28, 2025, President Donald Trump notified House Speaker Mike Johnson that he would not spend $4.9 billion of congressionally approved foreign aid, effectively bypassing the legislative branch. According to reporting by The Guardian, this maneuver—submitting a rescission request so late in the fiscal year that Congress cannot respond within the required 45-day window—had not been used by any president in nearly five decades.
Judge Ali’s ruling left little room for ambiguity. “To be clear, no one disputes that defendants have significant discretion in how to spend the funds at issue, and the court is not directing defendants to make payments to any particular recipients,” Ali wrote, as cited by AP. “But defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.” The judge emphasized that rescission cannot occur without explicit legislative approval from Congress, pointing out that “the law is explicit that it is congressional action—not the President’s transmission of a special message—that triggers rescission of the earlier appropriations.”
The $11.5 billion in question includes nearly $4 billion earmarked for global health initiatives under the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and more than $6 billion designated for HIV and AIDS programs. Nonprofit organizations, many of which depend on these resources for lifesaving projects around the world, have been vocal in their opposition to the freeze. Earlier this year, President Trump characterized these allocations as “wasteful spending” and signed an executive order directing the State Department and USAID to halt foreign aid disbursement, according to BBC.
The administration’s actions quickly drew legal challenges from nonprofit coalitions. Plaintiffs argued that the freeze jeopardized urgent work abroad and undermined Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse.” Elisha Dunn-Georgiou, CEO of the Global Health Council and one of the plaintiffs, hailed the court’s order as “a victory for the rule of law” and a reminder that “only Congress controls the power of the purse.”
Yet the legal wrangling has been anything but straightforward. A divided panel of appeals court judges briefly allowed the administration to suspend the funds, only to reverse course and revive the lawsuit before Judge Ali. The Trump administration, meanwhile, has remained steadfast in its defense, immediately filing a notice of appeal following the injunction. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly stated, “President Trump has the executive authority to ensure that all foreign aid is accountable to taxpayers and aligns with the America First priorities people voted for.”
Judge Ali’s opinion acknowledged the broader constitutional questions at stake, noting, “This case raises 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.” He suggested that “definitive higher court guidance now will be instructive,” signaling that the matter is far from settled and may ultimately require Supreme Court intervention.
The legal and political battle over the foreign aid freeze has drawn intense scrutiny from both sides of the aisle. Supporters of the administration argue that the president must have flexibility to ensure foreign aid spending reflects national priorities and fiscal responsibility. “President Trump is right to scrutinize where taxpayer dollars go overseas,” said one administration ally, emphasizing the need for accountability and alignment with U.S. interests.
Critics, however, warn that circumventing Congress sets a dangerous precedent. They point out that the power to appropriate funds is a core congressional prerogative, enshrined in the Constitution to prevent unilateral executive action over government spending. “If the president can simply refuse to spend money Congress has appropriated, it undermines the entire system of checks and balances,” said a Democratic lawmaker, echoing concerns raised by advocacy groups and constitutional scholars alike.
At the heart of the controversy is the so-called pocket rescission, a procedural maneuver that, while technically available to presidents, has rarely been used—precisely because of its potential to sidestep congressional oversight. As Reuters explains, the tactic involves submitting a rescission request to Congress late in the fiscal year, thereby running out the clock on the 45-day period lawmakers have to respond. Unless Congress acts, the money remains unspent as the fiscal year closes. Judge Ali’s ruling makes clear, however, that such a maneuver cannot override explicit legislative appropriations.
The funds at stake are not merely numbers on a spreadsheet. The nearly $4 billion set aside for global health initiatives supports vaccination drives, disease surveillance, and emergency medical responses in some of the world’s most vulnerable regions. The more than $6 billion for HIV and AIDS programs sustains antiretroviral drug distribution, prevention campaigns, and research vital to stemming the global epidemic. Nonprofit organizations warn that delays or interruptions in this funding could have immediate, life-threatening consequences for millions.
As the legal process unfolds, agencies and organizations that rely on U.S. foreign aid are left in a state of uncertainty. With the funds set to expire at the end of September, the clock is ticking. If the administration’s appeal succeeds, the freeze could remain in place, at least temporarily. If it fails, the money will flow to its intended recipients—but not without raising lasting questions about the limits of executive authority and the resilience of congressional oversight.
For now, Judge Ali’s injunction stands as a forceful affirmation of the principle that Congress, not the president, controls the nation’s purse strings. Whether that principle will withstand further legal challenges remains to be seen, but the stakes—for U.S. governance and for global health—could hardly be higher.
