The Supreme Court on Friday extended an order permitting President Donald Trump’s administration to maintain nearly $5 billion in foreign aid frozen, marking another legal victory in an ongoing dispute over presidential authority.
With the court’s three liberal justices dissenting, the conservative majority approved the administration’s emergency appeal in a case involving billions of dollars already authorized by Congress. Last month, Trump announced he would not release the funds, citing a rarely used authority last exercised by a president roughly 50 years ago.
Why It Matters
The ruling underscores the Trump administration’s growing reliance on emergency appeals to advance significant policy goals. In recent years, the Supreme Court has allowed Trump to remove legal protections for hundreds of thousands of migrants, terminate federal employees, expel transgender service members from the military, and oust heads of independent agencies — all via expedited appeals decided without full hearings or written opinions.
Though not final, these decisions give Trump leverage in ongoing legal disputes as lower courts continue to weigh the cases. Critics argue this pattern blurs the boundary between normal judicial review and presidential power consolidation.
Background of the Legal Fight
The dispute stems from Trump’s decision to withhold $4.9 billion in foreign aid already approved by Congress. In an Aug. 28 letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., Trump declared he would not release the funds, effectively cutting the budget without congressional approval.
Trump invoked a “pocket rescission,” a provision under federal law allowing presidents to request Congress cancel certain spending near the end of a budget year. Lawmakers must approve such requests within 45 days, but Trump issued his notice so late that the window will not close before Sept. 30. The White House argues that Congress’s inaction means the funds do not need to be spent.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali previously ruled that Trump’s approach was likely illegal, emphasizing that Congress must approve any decision to withhold appropriated funds. The case highlights the administration’s broader effort to cut foreign aid, a policy that produces modest budget savings but raises concerns about the U.S.’s global reputation as programs supporting food, health, and development lose funding.
Ali’s earlier ruling noted the case raises questions of “immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds.”
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals declined to reinstate Ali’s injunction, but Chief Justice John Roberts temporarily blocked the most recent order on Sept. 9. The full Supreme Court has now extended that block indefinitely.
The unsigned majority order cited Trump’s authority over foreign affairs as a key factor but stressed that it did not constitute a final judgment.
In dissent, Justice Elena Kagan argued the ruling effectively dooms the aid. “The effect is to prevent the funds from reaching their intended recipients — not just now but (because of their impending expiration) for all time,” she wrote, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
Expert Reactions
Suzanne Goldberg, a Constitutional Law professor at Columbia University, told Newsweek via email, “It is startling to see the Supreme Court allow the Administration to refuse to spend $4 billion of foreign aid that Congress had already authorized, and even more startling that the Court did not offer an explanation for its ruling. Instead, it concluded, in a single sentence, that the Administration ‘had made a sufficient showing’ that the Impoundment Act precluded the lawsuit without saying why, leaving a puzzling question about how a law specifically designed to stop the president from withholding funds did not apply here.
“While preliminary, the ruling ensures the funds will not be spent while litigation continues,” Goldberg added. “Stepping back, this opinion seems to be another step in the Court authorizing the president to step into Congress’ lane of authorizing funds, raising additional risk of destabilizing our separation-of-powers system.”
Justice Department attorneys told the Supreme Court that Ali’s injunction posed “a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers,” noting, “It would be self-defeating and senseless for the executive branch to obligate the very funds that it is asking Congress to rescind.”
Next Steps
The administration has said it will spend another $6.5 billion in aid before the fiscal year ends Tuesday. However, the $4.9 billion at the center of the lawsuit is unlikely to be distributed.
While the case continues in lower courts, the Supreme Court’s intervention ensures the money will remain frozen — and likely unspent — as the legal battle unfolds.
