September 26, 2025 – The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of President Donald Trump, allowing his administration to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid that had been appropriated by Congress for the 2025 fiscal year. This decision comes amid the administration’s continued push to pursue its “America First” agenda, particularly in the realm of foreign policy and international aid.
Background of the Case
The case centers on the administration’s move to block approximately $4 billion in foreign assistance intended for U.N. peacekeeping operations, democracy promotion, and other international aid programs. These funds were part of a broader $11 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress for fiscal year 2025, but the Trump administration argued that this spending was at odds with its policy goals.
The case began when several aid groups filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s decision to withhold the funds. In early September, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the administration must spend the money as stipulated by Congress, prompting the administration to appeal. The Supreme Court’s intervention now allows the withholding of those funds, effectively blocking Judge Ali’s order.
Court’s Decision and Majority Opinion
The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, agreed to pause Judge Ali’s injunction that required the administration to immediately disburse the funds. The justices expressed concerns that requiring Trump to comply with this order would impede his ability to conduct foreign affairs, a domain that the executive branch traditionally oversees.
While the ruling was unsigned, the court suggested that the aid groups might lack the standing to challenge the president’s decision, raising questions about whether they even had legal authority to bring the case to court. The conservative majority thus sided with the administration’s argument that it could withhold funds that contradicted its foreign policy stance.
Liberal Justices’ Dissent
The three liberal justices – Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson – dissented from the majority decision. In her dissent, Justice Kagan warned that the ruling undermined the separation of powers enshrined in the Constitution. Kagan argued that the Constitution grants Congress the power of the purse and that the executive must comply with appropriation laws unless Congress amends them. She emphasized that the president cannot simply choose not to spend funds allocated by Congress unless there has been a legislative change.
The dissent also raised concerns that the decision further erodes the principle of checks and balances, which is a core tenet of American governance.
Trump’s Agenda and Legal Arguments
The Trump administration has argued that the funds in question are contrary to its foreign policy priorities and that the president has the authority to rescind funds he deems unnecessary or misaligned with his agenda. Trump’s budget director, Russell Vought, defended the “pocket rescission” tactic used to avoid spending the money, which he claimed was last employed in 1977. Under this approach, the president can withhold funds for 45 days after requesting a rescission, effectively running out the clock until the end of the fiscal year.
The administration further argued that Judge Ali’s decision posed a grave threat to the separation of powers, claiming that compelling the executive to spend the funds would undermine the president’s ability to manage foreign relations and fiscal policy effectively.
Humanitarian Concerns and Impact
Nick Sansone, an attorney for the aid groups involved, criticized the decision, stating that it would have a “grave humanitarian impact” on vulnerable communities around the world. He argued that withholding these funds would harm aid programs essential for global peacekeeping, democracy, and development.
In contrast, the administration has stressed that the move aligns with its America First policy and reflects a broader effort to scale back U.S. assistance abroad, especially to international bodies and initiatives that the Trump administration deems counterproductive or inefficient.
Broader Implications
This decision underscores a broader constitutional debate over the president’s power to override the legislative authority of Congress when it comes to government spending. Legal experts have pointed out that this case could have significant long-term implications for how future administrations interpret their fiscal powers, particularly regarding foreign aid.
Additionally, the Supreme Court’s intervention in this case comes amid a series of rulings that have largely favored the Trump administration’s efforts to implement its policies, particularly in areas like immigration, executive power, and foreign relations. The court’s decision has heightened concerns among critics who believe that Trump’s influence over the judicial system has reached a new level, especially given the conservative majority on the bench.
Next Steps
The case will likely continue to move through the courts, with further legal battles over the extent of presidential authority and the separation of powers. The ruling could set a precedent for how future presidents may deal with congressionally appropriated funds that conflict with their own policies.
For now, the administration is permitted to withhold the $4 billion in foreign aid, but this legal battle is far from over as aid groups and others continue to challenge the president’s authority in this area.
About the Author
