Supreme Court enables Trump to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid

In Washington, on a Friday in September 2025, the Supreme Court made a controversial decision that allowed the Trump administration to withhold more than $4 billion in foreign aid, which had been previously approved by Congress. This decision granted the administration emergency relief in a continuing legal battle regarding the funds. Chief Justice John Roberts had previously issued an order that temporarily froze a district court injunction demanding that the administration disperse the appropriated funds for foreign aid projects, set to expire at the fiscal year's end on September 30. The ruling underscored the Court's view that the executive branch's discretion in foreign affairs seemed to outweigh potential harms to the plaintiffs, composed of organizations dependent on the funding for various development projects overseas. The Trump administration's maneuver to withhold these funds was termed a 'pocket rescission,' with the justification that such actions had historical precedence under Nixon-era procedures intended to preserve congressional authority over budget allocations. The Court affirmed that at this stage, the plaintiffs had not demonstrated sufficient legal standing to compel the release of funds, given that the administration had initiated the formal process of retracting the funds, as stipulated by the Impoundment Control Act. The possibility that the funds would simply expire without further congressional action was a pivotal element of the Court's reasoning, highlighting the complex interaction between executive authority and legislative control in federal funding. The dissenting opinion, voiced primarily by Justice Elena Kagan backed by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressed concern over the implications of the Court's ruling for the balance of power. The dissenters highlighted the significant stakes involved, stating that the outcome allows the executive branch to cease obligations on funds that Congress had appropriated, which could compromise the financial stability of organizations reliant on federal assistance for their operations. This legal battle, which began in February when nonprofit organizations raised objections to the Trump administration's pause on foreign anti-poverty assistance programs to assess alignment with presidential foreign policy, shows the tensions inherent in the governance and implementation of foreign aid. Following a mixed bag of lower court responses, the majority decision by the Supreme Court fell broadly in line with executive prerogative, even at the cost of non-profit organizations and affiliates that stood to lose funding. These outcomes illuminate the evolving landscape of American governance, particularly in how executive actions reflect or diverge from congressional intent in the management of statutory appropriations.