On September 27, 2025, the U.S. Supreme Court made headlines by granting a temporary freeze on approximately $4 billion in foreign aid, siding with the Trump administration in a contentious dispute over executive authority and congressional power. The decision, which comes just days before the end of the federal fiscal year on September 30, has sparked heated debate over constitutional principles and the real-world impact of withholding humanitarian funds.
The aid in question was designated by Congress for a range of international causes, including United Nations peacekeeping operations and democracy-promotion efforts abroad. According to The Economic Times, this $4 billion is part of a broader $11 billion allocation set to expire at the close of the fiscal year. The Trump administration, invoking its “America First” policy, argued that these funds do not align with current U.S. foreign policy priorities and sought to rescind them through a rarely used maneuver known as a "pocket rescission." This tactic, designed to run out the clock on spending before the fiscal year ends, was last used in 1977.
The court’s unsigned order effectively blocks a directive from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who had ruled on September 3 that the administration’s move violated the Constitution’s separation of powers and ordered the funds to be disbursed. Judge Ali asserted that the executive branch must comply with appropriations laws unless Congress takes explicit action to relieve the Executive of that duty. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit upheld Ali’s ruling in a 2-1 decision, which prompted the Trump administration to seek emergency relief from the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority, sided with the administration, granting the Justice Department’s request to pause Judge Ali’s order while the case proceeds. The justices signaled that the aid organizations challenging the administration’s actions may lack the legal standing to sue, and they expressed concern that ruling against the president at this stage could undermine his constitutional authority over foreign affairs. This theme of executive power has recurred in several recent Supreme Court decisions involving the Trump administration since his return to office in January.
The court’s three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented. In her written dissent, Justice Kagan called the decision “an affront to the constitutional principle that power is separated between the three branches of government.” She wrote, “The Constitution gives Congress the power to make spending decisions through the enactment of appropriations laws. 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.”
For the Trump administration, the rationale for withholding the funds is rooted in a technical but consequential interpretation of executive authority. Budget director Russell Vought argued that the president can legally withhold funds for up to 45 days after formally requesting a rescission from Congress—a window that, if timed correctly, can expire alongside the fiscal year, effectively blocking the money from being spent. As reported by The Economic Times, critics see this as a way to circumvent Congress’s constitutionally mandated power of the purse.
Legal experts have noted that the administration’s use of a pocket rescission to attempt to claw back billions in congressionally appropriated funds is virtually unprecedented in modern American history. The White House itself has admitted that the tactic was last employed nearly half a century ago, and under very different circumstances. According to Reuters, some scholars have said there is no clear historical parallel for the magnitude and manner of this attempt to rescind funds already approved by Congress.
The stakes are not just legal or political—they are deeply humanitarian. The funds at issue were intended for global initiatives that support some of the world’s most vulnerable populations. Nick Sansone, legal counsel for several aid organizations involved in the lawsuit, warned that the Supreme Court’s decision “further erodes separation of powers principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order” and “will also have a grave humanitarian impact on vulnerable communities throughout the world.”
The Department of Justice, for its part, argued in court filings that Judge Ali’s injunction posed “a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers.” The Justice Department’s lawyers wrote, “It would be self-defeating and senseless for the executive branch to obligate the very funds that it is asking Congress to rescind.” This argument resonated with the court’s conservative majority, which has consistently sided with the administration in similar disputes since January 2025. Earlier this year, the Supreme Court allowed the president to withhold $2 billion in previously contracted aid payments in another high-profile case.
The current legal battle highlights the ongoing tension between the executive and legislative branches over control of federal spending. The U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse, but the executive branch has historically sought ways to assert its influence over how and when funds are spent, especially in the realm of foreign policy. The Trump administration’s approach, emphasizing unilateral executive action, has reignited debates about the proper balance of power in the American system of government.
For lawmakers and advocates who support robust U.S. engagement in international humanitarian efforts, the Supreme Court’s decision is a significant setback. They argue that withholding funds at the eleventh hour undermines both the intent of Congress and the credibility of the United States on the world stage. On the other hand, supporters of the administration contend that the president must have the flexibility to align spending with current foreign policy objectives, especially when circumstances or priorities change rapidly.
As the end of the fiscal year approaches, the fate of the remaining $11 billion in foreign aid hangs in the balance. The Supreme Court’s intervention has bought the administration time, but it has also raised fundamental questions about the separation of powers, the limits of executive authority, and the role of the judiciary in refereeing disputes between the branches of government. With the court poised to hear further arguments in the coming months, the ultimate resolution of this case could have far-reaching implications for the future of American governance and global leadership.
For now, the world watches as billions in aid—and the lives of countless people who depend on it—remain in limbo, caught in the crosscurrents of law, politics, and principle.
