The Supreme Court on September 26, 2025 allowed the Donald Trump administration to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign-aid funds that Congress had previously appropriated, by granting an emergency stay of a lower‐court ruling requiring disbursement. The funds at issue include money set aside for global health programs, democracy-promotion, and other aid managed by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the Department of State. The Court’s majority concluded that the potential harm to the executive branch’s ability to conduct foreign affairs outweighed the harm to the aid‐recipient organizations.
The case arises from the Trump administration’s use of a “pocket rescission” tactic: submitting a rescission notice very close to the end of the fiscal year so that funds expire without further action, thereby sidestepping what the administration argued would otherwise require Congress’s explicit approval. Plaintiffs—aid groups and contractors—argued that the administration’s unilateral decision to withhold funds violated the Appropriations Clause and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which regulates a president’s power to impound or withhold appropriated funds. The lower court had earlier ordered the administration to obligate the funds by the expiration date of the appropriation.
In granting the stay, the Supreme Court did not issue a final ruling on the merits of the case—but it allowed the freeze to stand while litigation continues. The decision was split: the conservative majority sided with the government, while the three liberal justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented, warning that the case raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and Congress’s control over appropriations.
The broader implication is that the decision signals a significant expansion of presidential authority over spending decisions once made by Congress. By halting the release of billions in aid, the Court’s stay gives the executive branch a stronger hand in aligning foreign‐aid policy with its priorities. Critics warn this shift could undermine long-standing congressional oversight of spending and humanitarian commitments abroad. Supporters argue it restores needed flexibility for the president to shape foreign policy without being locked into outdated appropriations.
