The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a significant judgment on former President Donald Trump’s major foreign policy decision, granting his administration the authority to withhold billions of dollars in foreign aid despite congressional approval.
In a 6–3 decision, the justices allowed the Trump administration to suspend more than $4 billion in funding for overseas development assistance, peacekeeping operations, and democracy promotion initiatives. The Court ruled that the potential harm to the executive branch’s constitutional powers outweighed the harm faced by organizations and businesses dependent on the aid.
“This ruling should not be read as a final determination on the merits,” the Court stated in its unsigned order. “The relief granted by the Court today reflects our preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief.”
The case arose after Trump announced a plan to rescind $4.9 billion through a maneuver known as a “pocket rescission,” arguing that the funds supported “wasteful” programs inconsistent with his “America First” agenda. While the Government Accountability Office (GAO) had declared the action illegal, the Supreme Court held that the administration had made a “sufficient showing” that the Impoundment Control Act could bar the lawsuit.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, strongly criticized the decision, warning of its constitutional implications. “The consequence of today’s grant is significant… the effect of its ruling is to allow the Executive to cease obligating $4 billion in funds that Congress appropriated for foreign aid, and that will now never reach its intended recipients. Because that result conflicts with the separation of powers, I respectfully dissent,” Kagan wrote.
Earlier, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had ruled that the administration’s refusal to release the foreign aid funds violated federal law, stressing that only Congress could rescind appropriated money through new legislation. The Trump administration had imposed a 90-day pause on the foreign aid in February, prompting lawsuits from nonprofits and development firms that rely heavily on government contracts. This triggered a wave of conflicting rulings across the lower courts.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer, defending the administration’s position before the Supreme Court, warned that the lower court’s injunction “raises a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers.” He argued, “The President can hardly speak with one voice in foreign affairs or in dealings with Congress when the district court is forcing the Executive Branch to advocate against its own objectives.”
Meanwhile, lawyers for the plaintiffs insisted that Congress’s constitutional power of the purse was being undermined. They noted that aid groups like Democracy International, which derives 98% of its revenue from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), faced collapse if the funds were permanently withheld. “The pocket rescission of democracy promotion funds is an existential threat to Democracy International,” they warned.
The Supreme Court’s judgment marks a decisive legal victory for Trump’s foreign policy, strengthening executive authority in international affairs while intensifying debates over the limits of congressional oversight and the future of U.S. commitments abroad.
