Supreme Court Backs Trump in Foreign Aid Freeze, Sparking High‑Stakes Legal Battle
In a controversial and closely watched decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has temporarily allowed President Donald Trump’s administration to keep billions of dollars in foreign aid frozen while the legal fight over executive spending power continues.
The ruling gives the White House a reprieve from a lower court order that had required the funds to be disbursed before they expired, a move that has divided lawmakers, legal experts, and aid organizations.
A Rare Legal Tool Sparks Dispute
At the heart of the dispute is Trump’s use of a rarely invoked budget maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.”
Under this tactic, the president can send a notice to Congress cancelling funding so close to the end of a fiscal year that lawmakers have virtually no time to act — effectively letting the money go unspent.
The pocket rescission in question targets nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, the first time this approach has been attempted in decades.
Those funds had been designated for a range of international assistance efforts, from development programs to peacekeeping and democracy support. By withholding the money, the administration argues it is realigning U.S. foreign aid to better match its policy priorities. Critics, however, say the move sidesteps Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.
Supreme Court Steps In
A federal district judge had previously ruled that the administration could not keep the aid frozen and ordered the funds spent before the fiscal year deadline.
The government appealed that decision, and the Supreme Court stepped in, siding with the administration’s emergency request to pause enforcement of the lower court’s order.
The high court’s conservative majority agreed to let the freeze remain in place while the case works its way through the judicial system.
The temporary decision does not resolve the broader legal questions about presidential authority — only that the funds can remain frozen for now.
The justices have yet to issue a full merits ruling, and the dispute is likely to continue in court.
Broader Constitutional Questions
At issue is not just foreign aid, but the balance of power between the executive branch and Congress, which constitutionally controls federal spending.
Opponents of the funding freeze argue that allowing a president to unilaterally halt congressionally approved funds undermines that principle.
Supporters counter that the executive branch must have flexibility in foreign affairs and budget execution, especially during national emergencies or shifting policy priorities.
Legal challenges over Trump’s approach have already produced mixed results in lower courts, and the Supreme Court’s willingness to pause orders shows how closely divided justices are on these constitutional limits. As the case proceeds, its outcome could shape how future administrations manage federal appropriations and executive authority.
