The U.S. Supreme Court has once again thrown its weight behind Donald Trump, greenlighting his administration’s move to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid that Congress had already signed off for the current fiscal year.
At the heart of the clash is a fundamental question: how much power does a president really have to sidestep Congress and redirect—or in this case, stall—money already appropriated? The Constitution gives lawmakers control of the purse strings, yet the Court’s latest order gives Trump leeway to hold back funds he deems misaligned with his “America First” vision.
The unsigned order halts a lower-court ruling from Judge Amir Ali, who had ordered the White House to move forward with distributing the money. Aid groups brought the lawsuit, arguing the administration cannot simply decide not to spend funds authorized by law. The justices, split along ideological lines, disagreed—at least for now. All three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan warning that the ruling undermines the separation of powers by granting the executive branch unchecked control over spending decisions.
The money at stake was earmarked for international aid, peacekeeping efforts, and democracy initiatives abroad. Instead, the administration argued the spending clashed with U.S. foreign policy priorities. The White House relied on a rare budgetary maneuver—a so-called “pocket rescission”—to effectively run out the clock until the fiscal year ends on September 30.
Critics warn the decision could ripple far beyond Washington. Aid groups cautioned of “grave humanitarian impact” for communities overseas, while constitutional scholars described Trump’s funding freeze as a move with no modern precedent.
This is not the first time the Supreme Court has stepped in on behalf of Trump’s policy agenda since his return to the Oval Office in January. Time and again, when lower courts have pushed back, the justices’ conservative majority has sided with the administration—cementing a pattern that shows no sign of slowing.
