The Supreme Court’s decision on September 26, 2025, to allow President Donald Trump to freeze up to $5 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress has triggered a fierce debate over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches, the future of U.S. foreign policy, and the fate of humanitarian programs worldwide. The ruling, which arrived just days before the end of the federal fiscal year and a looming government shutdown deadline, underscores not only the legal complexities at play but also the broader ideological clash over America’s role on the global stage.
At the heart of the dispute is President Trump’s use of a rarely invoked budgetary maneuver called a “pocket rescission.” As reported by Fox News and NBC News, Trump notified Congress in late August 2025 of his intent to withhold $4 billion to $5 billion in foreign aid funding, including money designated for global health, HIV relief, United Nations peacekeeping, and democracy promotion. The administration argued that these programs conflicted with U.S. foreign policy priorities and, in some cases, were “contrary to American values.”
Federal law, specifically the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, requires that if a president wishes to rescind (i.e., cancel) spending previously approved by Congress, a formal notice must be sent to lawmakers, who then have 45 days to approve or reject the request. If Congress takes no action, the money is supposed to be spent as originally allocated. However, by submitting the rescission notice within 45 days of the fiscal year’s end—September 30—the administration effectively ran down the clock. Once the fiscal year closes, any unspent funds expire, and the White House claims it is under no further obligation to release the money.
This legal tightrope act has not gone unchallenged. Nonprofit groups that rely on foreign aid, including those focused on global health and victims of torture, filed suit in February 2025, alleging that the administration’s actions represented an “unconstitutional exercise of executive power” and endangered critical humanitarian efforts. As Scott Roehm of the Center for Victims of Torture put it, “Gutting that program punishes torture survivors; people suffering from the deep physical and psychological scars that torturers inflict. The administration is abandoning torture victims to serve a naked political agenda, nothing more.” (CNN)
The case quickly wound its way through the courts. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, sided with the nonprofits earlier this month, ruling that Trump’s attempt to withhold the funds “usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place.” Judge Ali further noted, as cited by Fox News, that the 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.”
The Trump administration, however, appealed the decision, with Solicitor General D. John Sauer arguing that forcing the executive branch to spend the money would “impose unacceptable restrictions on the president by, among other things, forcing the administration to engage in diplomatic discussions with other countries over how to spend the money.” The administration also stressed its intention to spend $6.5 billion of the foreign aid at issue, but to withhold the remaining $4 billion, as reported by Reuters and AP.
Chief Justice John Roberts, acting on September 9, 2025, temporarily stayed Judge Ali’s order, granting the Supreme Court time to consider the emergency appeal. When the high court delivered its ruling on September 26, it did so in an unsigned order, granting preliminary relief to the administration. The court’s majority—six conservative justices—stated that “the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm” to nonprofit plaintiffs, and emphasized that the order “should not be read as a final determination on the merits.”
The three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented vigorously. Justice Kagan, writing for the minority, underscored the gravity of the court’s intervention: “The effect is to prevent the funds from reaching their intended recipients—not just now but (because of their impending expiration) for all time.” She criticized the majority for acting on the so-called “shadow docket,” with “scant briefing, no oral argument, and no opportunity to deliberate in conference.” Kagan argued, “If those laws require obligation of the money, and if Congress has not by rescission or other action relieved the executive of that duty, then the executive must comply. It cannot be heard to complain, as it does here, that the laws clash with the president’s differing view of ‘American values’ and ‘American interests.’” (CNN)
The Supreme Court’s move has sparked strong reactions across the political spectrum. Democrats in Congress, including Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, urged their colleagues to “stand up for our power of the purse,” warning that the decision erodes the constitutional separation of powers and sets a dangerous precedent for future presidents. Meanwhile, supporters of the administration argue that the president must retain flexibility in directing foreign policy and spending, particularly when existing programs are seen as out of step with current priorities. As Fox News noted, reductions in foreign aid have become a hallmark of Trump’s “America First” approach.
The broader implications of the decision are significant. Not only does it provide a potential roadmap for future presidents to circumvent congressional spending mandates by exploiting fiscal calendar quirks, but it also raises pressing questions about the enforceability of the Impoundment Control Act. As lawyers for the Global Health Council and other nonprofits argued in court papers, the administration’s legal theory “would turn the Impoundment Control Act on its head by reaching the conclusion that Congress’s signature law meant to control impoundments actually provided the President vast new powers to impound funds, and made it virtually impossible to challenge impoundments in court.”
Outside the legal and political wrangling, the real-world stakes are acute. Funds at risk include support for United Nations peacekeeping missions, democracy-building initiatives, and programs aimed at helping small farmers recover from climate disasters in countries like Colombia and Honduras. Humanitarian groups warn that the loss of this aid will have “grave humanitarian impact,” as Nicolas Sansome of Public Citizen Litigation Group stated to NBC News.
As the government barrels toward the September 30 deadline to avoid a shutdown, the foreign aid standoff has become entwined with broader budget negotiations and questions about the future direction of American engagement abroad. Whether Congress will move to reassert its authority or if the president’s maneuver will stand as precedent remains to be seen. For now, the Supreme Court’s ruling has shifted the balance of power, at least temporarily, toward the executive branch—and left billions in global aid hanging in the balance.
With the fiscal year’s end approaching and the legal battle unresolved, policymakers, advocates, and recipients of U.S. foreign aid are left anxiously waiting to see whether the funds will ever reach their intended destinations—or if a new era of executive control over federal spending has just begun.
