Supreme Court Allows Trump Administration to Withhold $4 Billion in Congressionally Approved Foreign Aid

The U.S. Supreme Court delivered another favorable ruling for Donald Trump on Friday, permitting his administration to withhold approximately $4 billion in foreign aid that Congress had authorized for the current fiscal year, aligning with the Republican president's "America First" policy agenda.

The justices intervened to block an order from Washington-based U.S. District Judge Amir Ali that had mandated the administration to take immediate steps to distribute the contested aid. Judge Ali's ruling had emerged from a legal challenge brought by various aid organizations disputing the administration's withholding action.

At the heart of this legal battle lies the question of presidential authority to rescind funds appropriated by Congress for programs that conflict with administrative policies.

In court documents, the administration stated that the targeted funds are "contrary to U.S. foreign policy," reflecting Trump's broader initiative to reduce American assistance abroad as part of his "America First" platform. Additionally, Trump has taken steps to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development, which serves as the primary U.S. foreign aid agency.

The U.S. government's 2025 fiscal year concludes on September 30. The $4 billion in dispute was allocated by Congress for foreign aid, United Nations peacekeeping operations, and international democracy-promotion initiatives.

Congress had budgeted billions in foreign aid last year, with approximately $11 billion scheduled to expire at the fiscal year's end.

The administration attempted to block the contested $4 billion through an unusual mechanism known as a "pocket rescission," designed to avoid disbursing congressionally appropriated funds. Under the U.S. Constitution, Congress holds the power of the purse.

On September 3, Judge Ali determined that the administration cannot arbitrarily withhold the allocated money and must adhere to congressional appropriations laws unless amended by lawmakers.

Justice Department attorneys argued to the Supreme Court that Ali's injunction presented "a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers." The U.S. Constitution specifically assigns different authorities to the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

"It would be self-defeating and senseless for the executive branch to obligate the very funds that it is asking Congress to rescind," stated the Justice Department's legal representatives.

Trump's budget director Russell Vought has maintained that the president possesses authority to withhold funds for 45 days after requesting a rescission, potentially allowing the fiscal year to end before disbursement becomes necessary. The White House indicated this tactic had not been employed since 1977.

Several legal experts have noted that Trump's attempted reclamation of billions in congressionally appropriated funds through this method lacks historical precedent.

The plaintiffs countered the Justice Department's position, arguing that if permitted, the administration's strategy "would provide the president unchecked power to rescind funds."

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, in a 2-1 decision on September 5, refused to suspend Judge Ali's order, prompting the administration to petition the Supreme Court.

On September 9, in response to the foreign aid case, the Supreme Court temporarily paused Ali's order while deliberating how to proceed.

Throughout this year, the administration has repeatedly sought Supreme Court intervention to implement Trump policies that lower courts had blocked. The Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has consistently ruled in favor of the administration in almost every case it has reviewed since Trump resumed the presidency in January.

In a previous iteration of the foreign aid dispute, the court narrowly declined in a 5-4 vote in March to allow the administration to withhold approximately $2 billion from aid organizations for services they had already performed for the government.