In a decision that has sparked controversy across the political spectrum and sent shockwaves through the international aid community, the U.S. Supreme Court on September 26, 2025, granted President Donald Trump’s emergency request to freeze over $4 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. The ruling, handed down by a court with a 6-3 conservative majority, is not a final determination but rather an emergency order that allows the freeze to continue as the case proceeds through lower courts, according to TEMPO.CO and Courthouse News Service.
The aid in question had already been allocated by Congress, the branch of government constitutionally tasked with federal spending. The Trump administration’s move, however, was part of a broader and ongoing effort to drastically reduce U.S. foreign aid—a campaign that has included the dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and a series of funding cuts and rescissions. Since January 2025, the administration has repeatedly criticized foreign aid as wasteful or misaligned with American foreign policy goals, a stance that has drawn fierce opposition from humanitarian organizations, lawmakers, and even some in Trump’s own party.
Chief Justice John Roberts, a George W. Bush appointee, temporarily froze the funds to give the full court time to consider the administration’s emergency appeal. The Department of Justice, led by Attorney General and Trump ally Pam Bondi, had turned to the Supreme Court after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the aid must be released. The White House sharply criticized the lower court’s ruling, with U.S. Solicitor General John Sauer writing, “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.”
Not everyone on the Court agreed with the decision. The three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—issued a dissent, raising constitutional concerns. Kagan, appointed by former President Barack Obama, remarked, “But that is just the price of living under a Constitution that gives Congress the power to make spending decisions through the enactment of appropriations law.” She warned that the emergency order “conflicts with the separation of powers,” highlighting the constitutional design to prevent any one branch from overwhelming the others.
The constitutional tug-of-war is not just an academic debate. The U.S. Constitution’s so-called “power of the purse” gives Congress authority over federal taxation and spending. Critics of the administration’s actions, including letter writers in The Kansas City Star, argue that the foreign aid suspensions, cuts, and rescissions represent an infringement on this core congressional power. “Allowing these funds to go unused is equal to surrendering this power,” wrote Morgan Peters of Lawrence, Kansas, urging senators to protect both their constitutional authority and the nation’s foreign aid commitments.
At the heart of the dispute is not just money, but lives. The Trump administration’s downsizing of foreign aid and the shutting down of USAID—a move spearheaded by Secretary of State Marco Rubio—have already had far-reaching consequences. USAID, established in 1961 during the Cold War, was once the world’s largest international aid agency. Its programs, now merged with the State Department, have been credited with saving more than 90 million lives over the past two decades, according to a July 2025 study published in The Lancet.
The numbers tell a sobering story. Researchers at UCLA’s Fielding School of Public Health estimated that if the Trump administration’s funding cuts continue through 2030, an additional 14 million people could die globally—people who might have otherwise lived if aid programs were maintained. Humanitarian organizations like the International Rescue Committee and the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition have warned that the abrupt loss of funding has led to layoffs, the shutdown of lifesaving programs, and a heightened risk of unchecked disease outbreaks. “Without prevention and treatment efforts, diseases are more likely to spread unchecked, mutate and become harder to control,” the IRC stated in March 2025. “This creates a higher risk for future global health crises that could threaten lives worldwide.”
The legal battle has been marked by a series of emergency appeals. The Supreme Court’s most recent order follows months of back-and-forth, including a split ruling in March that refused to block $12 billion in USAID funding disbursement. The administration was ultimately forced to pay nearly $2 billion in contractual work completed before the funding pause. Nonprofits and private contractors, who sued after the pause, have argued that the administration’s actions are unlawful and have caused severe harm to those relying on their services. “There was no public interest in the perpetuation of unlawful agency action,” the businesses wrote in a filing to the court.
Adding to the legal complexity, the Trump administration attempted a so-called “pocket rescission” to cancel about $4.9 billion in previously approved foreign aid contracts. The Impoundment Control Act allows the White House to place a 45-day hold on a budget line item it wants Congress to rescind, but only if the rescission notice is properly delivered to both the House and Senate. A Government Accountability Office report found that the administration’s request was not delivered to the Senate until September 8, undermining the legal argument that the 45-day review period had been triggered. “Given that the central factual premise of the government’s application is inaccurate, the application should be summarily denied and the administrative stay dissolved,” argued the businesses challenging the freeze.
Meanwhile, the debate has spilled over into the public and political arena. Letters to the editor in The Kansas City Star reflect a deep concern from constituents about the erosion of constitutional norms and the humanitarian costs of letting billions in appropriated aid go unused. There are $12 billion in unobligated foreign assistance funds from fiscal year 2024 that could expire at the end of September 2025 if not used, with calls for Congress to pass a continuing resolution to ensure the money is spent as intended.
Trump and his allies, for their part, have defended the freeze as a necessary step to prevent waste and ensure that taxpayer dollars are not spent on programs that do not align with current U.S. policy objectives. They argue that releasing funds without proper diligence risks fraud and abuse—concerns that resonate with some fiscal conservatives and voters wary of unchecked government spending.
As the case continues to wind its way through the courts, the stakes remain high—not just for the balance of power in Washington, but for millions of people around the world whose lives may depend on the outcome. With the fiscal year’s end looming and billions in aid hanging in the balance, lawmakers, advocates, and ordinary citizens alike are watching closely, hoping that constitutional principles and humanitarian needs will not be lost in the shuffle of politics and legal wrangling.
The Supreme Court’s emergency order is just the latest chapter in a long-running struggle over who controls America’s purse strings—and, by extension, its role in the world.