On September 8, 2025, the Trump administration made an urgent appeal to the Supreme Court, seeking permission to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid frozen—a move that has reignited a fierce debate over presidential authority, congressional power, and America’s global commitments. The case centers on nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid that President Donald Trump said he would not spend, invoking a rarely used maneuver known as a "pocket rescission."
According to the Associated Press, President Trump notified House Speaker Mike Johnson on August 28 that he would not distribute $4.9 billion in foreign aid funds, effectively cutting the budget without formal legislative approval. The administration’s use of the pocket rescission tactic—last seen in 1977—has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers, nonprofit groups, and legal experts, all of whom question whether the executive branch can unilaterally withhold funds that Congress has already appropriated.
The legal battle escalated after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled in early September that the administration’s decision to withhold the funding was likely illegal. Judge Ali wrote, "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." His ruling underscored the constitutional principle that Congress, not the president, controls the nation’s purse strings. The judge’s injunction required the administration to release the funds, at least temporarily, while the courts continued to wrestle with the broader legal questions.
But the Trump administration, undeterred, quickly sought an emergency order from the Supreme Court to block Judge Ali’s decision. Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the ruling as "an unlawful injunction that precipitates an unnecessary emergency and needless interbranch conflict." He argued that obligating the funds would be "self-defeating and senseless for the executive branch to obligate the very funds that it is asking Congress to rescind," as reported by Al Jazeera and Axios.
The disputed funds, totaling around $4 billion, are part of a larger $11 billion foreign aid package approved by Congress for the current fiscal year. The money supports a range of international programs, including United Nations peacekeeping operations and democracy-promotion efforts. The administration stated it intended to spend $6.5 billion of the disputed funds before the fiscal year ends on September 30, but sought to withhold the remainder using the pocket rescission mechanism.
Nonprofit plaintiffs, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council, have challenged the freeze as both illegal and unconstitutional. Lauren Bateman, lead counsel for the plaintiffs, stated, "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.’ The Administration is effectively asking the Supreme Court to bless its attempt to unlawfully accumulate power."
The administration’s approach to foreign aid has been a defining aspect of Trump’s second term. Deep cuts to foreign assistance have been championed as part of an "America First" agenda, despite the fact that such reductions offer only modest savings relative to the federal deficit. Critics argue the cuts risk damaging America’s reputation abroad, as vital food supplies and development programs are suspended or canceled. The Reuters photo of unused cement bags at a construction site in Kenya’s Taveta county—a project stalled by the aid freeze—has become a symbol of the broader human impact of these policy shifts.
From the outset, the administration has asserted sweeping executive authority over spending decisions. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly told Axios, "President Trump was given a resounding mandate to put America First, and the administration continues to maintain the President’s right to execute his foreign policy agenda." Trump’s budget director, Russell Vought, has argued that the president can legally withhold funds for 45 days after submitting a rescission request to Congress, effectively running out the clock until the fiscal year ends and the money expires.
The legal questions at stake are profound. Judge Ali, in his ruling, noted, "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." The Supreme Court, which currently has six conservative justices, has been receptive to many of the administration’s emergency requests, granting temporary victories that have allowed Trump to cut grants, fire independent agency regulators, and remove protections for migrants. However, the Court has not always sided with the administration—in March, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Amy Coney Barrett, and the three liberal justices rejected Trump’s request to freeze nearly $2 billion in foreign aid while litigation continued, as detailed by The New York Times.
The administration’s reliance on emergency Supreme Court requests is itself a point of controversy. Since January 2025, Trump has sought 22 such rulings—more than any recent president. The Court has sided with him in 16 of those cases. Legal scholars and some federal judges have criticized this trend, arguing that the Court’s unsigned, rapid-fire orders lack transparency and detailed legal reasoning, despite their far-reaching consequences.
Meanwhile, the practical implications of the aid freeze are being felt worldwide. Aid groups report that urgent, lifesaving programs have been halted, leaving vulnerable populations at risk. The administration, for its part, insists that the withheld funds are "contrary to US foreign policy," and that releasing them would undermine the president’s diplomatic objectives.
The case continues to wind its way through the courts, with both sides acknowledging that the Supreme Court’s eventual decision will have lasting ramifications for the balance of power between Congress and the president. Plaintiffs have urged the justices to reject the administration’s request for an immediate stay, warning that even a temporary pause could result in the permanent loss of billions in aid due to the looming fiscal year deadline.
As the September 30 deadline approaches, the stakes could hardly be higher. The outcome will not only determine the fate of billions in foreign aid but may also redefine the boundaries of executive and legislative power for years to come. For now, the world watches and waits as America’s highest court prepares to weigh in on a question as old as the republic itself: who really controls the nation’s purse?
