The long-standing tug-of-war over who controls the United States’ purse strings has reached a dramatic new chapter as President Donald Trump’s administration seeks Supreme Court approval to freeze billions in foreign aid, directly challenging Congress’s authority over federal spending. The legal and political clash, which has been brewing for months, now centers on whether the president can unilaterally withhold funds already approved by lawmakers – a question with vast implications for U.S. governance, global development, and America’s reputation abroad.
On September 8, 2025, the Trump administration made an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court, asking for authorization to keep nearly $5 billion in foreign aid locked down. According to reporting by AP and CN, this request comes after a lower court ordered the government to release the funds by September 30. The ruling by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali was unequivocal: the administration’s decision to withhold the money was likely illegal, and only Congress—not the president—could approve such a rescission.
In a letter sent August 28 to House Speaker Mike Johnson, President Trump announced he would not spend $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, invoking a rarely used maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.” This tactic, last deployed by a president about five decades ago, allows the executive to submit a request to Congress so late in the fiscal year that lawmakers are left without the 45-day window required to act, causing the money to expire unspent. Trump’s critics, including Democrats on Capitol Hill, have called the move plainly illegal, arguing that it subverts the will of Congress and the checks and balances enshrined in U.S. law.
“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,” Judge Ali wrote in his ruling, as reported by AP. He made clear that the president cannot simply withhold funds by fiat, and that Congress must approve any such proposal. This position is echoed by the nonprofit organizations and contractors that sued the administration earlier this year, after tens of thousands of staff were laid off and urgent, lifesaving programs were shuttered due to the funding freeze.
The Trump administration, however, remains defiant. U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer, representing the government, lambasted the lower court’s ruling as an “unlawful injunction that precipitates an unnecessary emergency and needless interbranch conflict.” In his words, “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.” Sauer further argued that the injunction threatens to override the public interest by forcing the expenditure of taxpayer dollars on foreign assistance projects that “conflict with American values,” “are contrary to American interests,” and undermine the president’s foreign policy.
The administration’s push to slash foreign aid is not new. Over the summer, it secured congressional approval for a rescissions package clawing back roughly $8 billion in foreign aid funds, as reported by Devex. The latest “pocket rescission” is designed to cancel another $5 billion in assistance, exploiting a timing loophole to bypass a congressional vote. This move, while technically clever, has drawn sharp criticism from both legal scholars and aid advocates who warn of dire humanitarian consequences.
The real-world impact of these funding cuts is sobering. According to the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and Global Health Council, the abrupt loss of funds has caused severe harm to contractors and the millions who depend on their services. A study published in Lancet in July 2025 estimated that if these cuts persist through 2030, as many as 14 million people who might otherwise have survived could die. USAID programs, now officially shut down as of July 2025, had saved more than 90 million lives over the past two decades, underscoring the stakes of the current dispute.
For aid organizations, the legal wrangling has been a nightmare. “This marks the third time in this case alone that the Administration has run to the Supreme Court in a supposed emergency posture to seek relief from circumstances of its own making—this time to defend the illegal tactic of a ‘pocket rescission,’” said Lauren Bateman of Public Citizen Litigation Group, lead counsel for the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition plaintiffs, in a statement provided to AP. “The Administration is effectively asking the Supreme Court to bless its attempt to unlawfully accumulate power.”
The courts have not been idle. Earlier in the year, the Supreme Court issued a split ruling, refusing to block $12 billion in funding disbursement for USAID contractors, forcing the administration to pay nearly $2 billion for contractual work completed prior to the pause. After the most recent lower court order, the administration stated it would spend another $6.5 billion in aid before the fiscal year’s end, but the court compelled the full disbursement of appropriated funds nonetheless.
With the appeals court declining to pause Judge Ali’s injunction, the administration turned to the Supreme Court once more, arguing that compliance would be “untenable” given the tight timelines and ongoing legal uncertainty. Aid organizations, for their part, urged the justices not to grant a stay, contending that the government would not suffer irreparable harm while the case is considered, but that a stay could prevent the spending of billions of dollars Congress has already approved.
The broader implications of this case are hard to overstate. At its core, the dispute asks whether the president can override Congress’s explicit decisions on how taxpayer money should be spent. The answer will shape not only the fate of foreign aid programs but also the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches—an issue as old as the republic itself.
Supporters of the administration’s approach argue that the president must retain flexibility to prevent wasteful or counterproductive spending, especially in foreign affairs where quick shifts can be necessary. They say that judicial intervention in such matters risks undermining the executive’s ability to act in the national interest. Critics, however, see the moves as a dangerous power grab that, if left unchecked, could erode the very foundation of democratic accountability.
As the Supreme Court weighs its decision, the world watches closely. Billions of dollars—and millions of lives—hang in the balance. The outcome will not only determine the fate of this year’s foreign aid but could set a precedent for how future presidents wield the power of the purse.
For now, the clock ticks toward September 30. Aid workers, lawmakers, and affected communities wait anxiously for a ruling that could shape U.S. foreign policy and constitutional law for years to come.
