The U.S. Supreme Court handed President Donald Trump a significant legal victory by allowing his administration to temporarily freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid payments that the president moved to cancel last month through an unusual budgetary maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.” In a 6–3 decision, the Court granted the administration’s emergency appeal and halted a lower court order that would have required the release of funds previously approved by Congress. The ruling represents a major development in an ongoing dispute over executive authority, congressional spending power, and the limits imposed by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. While the decision does not resolve the broader constitutional question of whether a president can unilaterally impound funds appropriated by Congress, it allows the administration to maintain the funding freeze while litigation continues. The case has drawn national attention because it involves not only billions of dollars in foreign aid but also fundamental questions about the separation of powers and the balance between the executive and legislative branches in shaping U.S. foreign policy.

The Trump administration framed the ruling as a decisive affirmation of presidential authority, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs. A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget told the New York Post that the decision marked a “massive victory in restoring the President’s authority to implement his policies,” arguing that efforts by left-leaning organizations to derail the administration’s agenda had been effectively shut down. In its unsigned order, the Supreme Court majority concluded that the potential harm to the executive branch’s conduct of foreign policy outweighed the potential harm claimed by the plaintiffs, a group of nonprofit organizations that rely on U.S. foreign assistance funding. Those organizations include the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and the Global Health Council. According to the Court, allowing the funds to be released before the legal questions were resolved could undermine the president’s ability to manage sensitive international relationships and policy priorities. The decision underscores the judiciary’s historical tendency to grant the executive branch greater deference in matters involving diplomacy and foreign affairs, particularly when disputes arise on an emergency basis.

At the center of the controversy is Trump’s use of a “pocket rescission,” a rarely employed budgetary mechanism that allows the president to propose the cancellation of previously appropriated funds. Trump formally notified House Speaker Mike Johnson of his intent to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid, including approximately $3.2 billion allocated to programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development, $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations. The notification was sent so close to the end of the fiscal year on September 30 that Congress had no practical opportunity to act on the proposal, effectively allowing the rescission to take effect automatically. This marked the first time in nearly five decades that a president has successfully attempted to use such a maneuver, reviving debates over whether the Impoundment Control Act permits this approach. Critics argue that the tactic exploits a procedural loophole to sidestep congressional authority, while supporters contend that it is a lawful and long-overdue tool for curbing spending the president views as inconsistent with his policy objectives.

The funds targeted by the rescission had been earmarked for a range of nonprofit organizations and foreign governments, many of which are directly involved in humanitarian, public health, democracy promotion, and human rights initiatives overseas. Several of the affected nonprofit groups filed suit against the Trump administration, arguing that the funding freeze violated federal law and threatened critical, life-saving programs. Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta Ali, a Biden appointee, ruled in their favor, concluding that the administration could not withhold the funds without explicit congressional approval of the rescission proposal. In his ruling, Ali emphasized that Congress had not acted to rescind the appropriated funds and that the Impoundment Control Act clearly requires congressional action—not merely presidential notification—to cancel spending. “To date, Congress has not responded to the President’s rescission proposal by rescinding the funds,” Ali wrote, adding that the statute is explicit on the matter. The Supreme Court’s decision temporarily blocks that ruling, allowing the funding freeze to remain in place while the legal challenge continues through the courts.

The Supreme Court’s ruling was not unanimous, and the three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—issued dissents expressing concern about the broader implications of the decision. Although the majority limited its ruling to the emergency request before it, the dissenting justices warned that allowing the executive branch to withhold congressionally approved funds, even temporarily, risks eroding legislative control over federal spending. The dissenters echoed arguments made by the nonprofit plaintiffs, who maintain that the funding freeze sets a dangerous precedent and undermines the constitutional power of Congress to determine how taxpayer dollars are spent. The Court’s decision explicitly avoided addressing the ultimate legality of unilateral impoundment, leaving that question unresolved. However, legal scholars note that the ruling signals a willingness by the conservative majority to grant the president greater leeway in budgetary and foreign policy disputes, at least in the short term, while broader constitutional questions are litigated.

The foreign aid decision comes amid a series of high-profile Supreme Court actions involving presidential authority during Trump’s second term. Earlier in the same week, the Court agreed to hear a separate case that could further redefine the balance of power between the president and independent federal agencies. That case centers on whether Trump can remove members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause, despite statutory protections designed to insulate the agency from political interference. In a brief order, the justices allowed Trump to remove FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case is pending, with oral arguments scheduled for December. The outcome could potentially overturn the Court’s 1935 precedent upholding limits on presidential removal power and reshape the structure of independent agencies across the federal government. As with the foreign aid ruling, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson dissented, with Kagan warning that the majority’s approach effectively grants the president “full control” over agencies Congress intended to remain bipartisan and independent. Together, these cases reflect a broader judicial reckoning over executive power—one that could have lasting consequences for the presidency, Congress, and the administrative state well beyond the immediate disputes now before the Court.