The Supreme Court has stepped into yet another clash between Donald Trump’s White House and lower courts—this time over billions in foreign aid that Congress set aside but the administration wants to freeze.
Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay, blocking a federal judge’s directive that would have forced the government to swiftly distribute about $4 billion earmarked for overseas programs, peacekeeping, and democracy efforts. The pause buys the justices time to weigh the administration’s appeal, with aid groups ordered to respond by week’s end.
At the heart of the dispute lies a maneuver dubbed a “pocket rescission,” a rarely used budgetary tactic that Trump officials argue allows them to stall funding long enough for it to expire at the close of the fiscal year on September 30. Critics say it’s an unconstitutional end run around Congress’s spending power.
A district judge ruled last week that the administration cannot simply lock away money that lawmakers explicitly appropriated. The Justice Department countered, warning the injunction threatens the constitutional balance between the branches of government.
The fight is not just about dollars—it’s about power. Trump has framed foreign aid as wasteful and inconsistent with his “America First” vision, even dismantling much of the U.S. Agency for International Development. Congress, meanwhile, approved roughly $11 billion in aid for the year, with deadlines looming.
The appellate court in Washington refused to stop the lower court’s order, pushing the administration to seek emergency relief from the high court. With a conservative majority often sympathetic to Trump’s emergency pleas, the stage is set for another test of how far the justices will allow him to stretch executive authority.
This isn’t the first time the same aid dispute has reached the justices. In March, a narrow 5–4 ruling prevented the White House from withholding $2 billion owed to organizations that had already carried out government contracts. Now, with higher stakes and less time, the question is whether the Court will once again step in—or let the clock run out.
