WASHINGTON — In a move that has sent ripples through the corridors of Capitol Hill and across the globe, Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday, September 9, 2025, temporarily upheld the Trump administration’s freeze on nearly $5 billion in foreign aid. The decision, which came in response to an emergency appeal from the administration, has placed billions of congressionally approved dollars in limbo and intensified debate over the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
At the heart of the legal clash is President Donald Trump’s determination not to spend the funds, a stance he announced in August by invoking a rarely used authority last seen about 50 years ago. According to the Associated Press, Trump’s move came as part of a broader effort to curtail what he described as wasteful foreign aid spending, including significant sums earmarked for global health and HIV programs.
The Supreme Court’s order is, for now, only temporary. But legal experts and observers note that it signals the justices may be inclined to reverse a lower court ruling that found the administration’s withholding of the funds was likely illegal. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had ruled the previous week that the executive branch could not unilaterally withhold the money without congressional approval, writing, “The executive not only claims his constitutional authority to determine how to spend appropriated funds, but usurps Congress’s exclusive authority to dictate whether the funds should be spent in the first place.”
Trump’s administration, for its part, has pushed back forcefully. U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued before the court, “The president can hardly speak with one voice in foreign affairs or in dealings with Congress when the district court is forcing the executive branch to advocate against its own objectives.” The administration told the Supreme Court it intends to spend $6.5 billion of the foreign aid by September 30, but wants to withhold another $4 billion, a sum that has become the focal point of the legal and political battle.
The controversial freeze comes at a delicate moment for both domestic and foreign policy. In late August, Trump notified Congress of his intent to claw back the money using a rare “pocket rescission,” a maneuver that would effectively cancel the spending unless Congress explicitly considers the proposal. This move has complicated already tense negotiations to avoid a government shutdown by the end of the month, as reported by CNN.
Groups representing grant recipients, particularly those focused on global health and HIV/AIDS, have sued over access to the funds, arguing that the administration’s actions could have devastating consequences for vulnerable populations worldwide. They also contend that the administrative stay granted by Chief Justice Roberts could allow the administration to simply run out the clock, never releasing the money at issue. “The government’s theory that the agencies need not comply with enacted legislation mandating that they spend funds, because the president has unilaterally proposed legislation to rescind those statutory mandates, would fundamentally upend our constitutional structure,” the groups told the court, as cited by CNN.
The Supreme Court’s intervention is just the latest in a string of high-profile rulings involving the Trump administration. As noted by the Associated Press, the court recently sided with Trump on immigration matters, clearing the way for sweeping federal operations in Los Angeles, and approved the firing of Federal Trade Commission commissioner Rebecca Slaughter. These decisions have emboldened the administration as it seeks to assert greater control over federal agencies and policy levers.
The foreign aid freeze, however, stands out for its potential to affect U.S. credibility abroad. The funds in question were appropriated by Congress and, in many cases, have already been allocated to specific programs or partners overseas. The administration’s decision to withhold them has drawn criticism not only from domestic advocacy groups, but also from international allies who rely on U.S. support for health, development, and humanitarian initiatives.
Behind the scenes, the legal wrangling has also exposed the friction between the executive and legislative branches. Judge Ali, appointed to the federal bench by President Joe Biden, underscored the constitutional stakes in his March opinion, describing the spending of foreign aid as a “joint enterprise between our two political branches.” The Trump administration’s reliance on executive authority, including the “pocket rescission,” has revived debates over the separation of powers and the limits of presidential discretion in spending matters.
The immediate legal question before the Supreme Court is whether the administration can continue to withhold the funds while the justices consider the broader constitutional issues. Chief Justice Roberts’ administrative stay is intended to give the court more time to review the case, but the timeline is tight: Roberts has ordered the groups challenging the freeze to respond by Friday afternoon, September 12, 2025. With the end of the fiscal year looming and the threat of a government shutdown hanging over Congress, the stakes could hardly be higher.
Meanwhile, the political fallout has been swift. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have voiced concern over the potential consequences of the freeze, with some warning that it could undermine U.S. interests abroad and damage relationships with key allies. Others, particularly those aligned with the administration, argue that the president is right to scrutinize foreign aid and ensure taxpayer dollars are not wasted. The dispute has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over the role of the United States on the world stage and the proper balance of power in Washington.
As the legal and political drama unfolds, the human impact of the freeze remains front and center for many advocacy groups and aid recipients. Global health organizations warn that delays in funding could disrupt critical services, from HIV treatment to pandemic preparedness, in countries that depend on U.S. support. For now, they wait anxiously for clarity from the nation’s highest court.
With the Supreme Court poised to weigh in on the fate of billions in foreign aid, the coming days will test not only the limits of presidential power, but also the resilience of America’s constitutional system — and its commitment to leadership on the global stage.
