In a significant legal move, the Trump administration has requested an emergency order from the U.S. Supreme Court to maintain a freeze on nearly $5 billion in foreign aid. This decision centers around funds approved by Congress, which President Trump indicated he would not allocate last month. Using authority previously invoked by a president about fifty years ago, Trump is attempting to withhold these funds, a move that has sparked legal challenges.
What Happened
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali recently ruled that the administration’s decision to withhold these funds was likely illegal. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson on August 28, Trump stated that he would not allocate the $4.9 billion in approved foreign aid, effectively reducing the budget without it going through Congress.
This tactic, known as a “pocket rescission,” allows a president to inform Congress at the end of the budget year that specific funds should not be spent. However, this last-minute announcement leaves Congress without enough time to respond, meaning the money remains unspent.
Judge Ali emphasized that in order for the Trump administration to proceed with withholding these funds, Congress must approve a rescission proposal. The law clearly stipulates that congressional action, not just a presidential notification, is required to trigger such a rescission.
Reactions
The Trump administration has made it clear that cutting foreign aid is a cornerstone of its policy, despite the relatively small financial impact compared to the national deficit. Critics argue that withholding foreign aid could have negative effects on the U.S.’s global standing, particularly as it affects food supplies and development programs in other countries. In response to an appeals court’s refusal to block Judge Ali’s ruling, the administration has appealed to the Supreme Court for intervention.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer called the lower court’s ruling an “unlawful injunction,” claiming it caused unnecessary conflict between the branches of government and urging the justices to step in.
On the other side, attorneys for nonprofit organizations challenging the government’s decision argue that the funding freeze itself violates federal law, adversely affecting critical lifesaving programs abroad. Attorney Lauren Bateman from the Public Citizen Litigation Group criticized the administration for seeking Supreme Court intervention on issues it created, stressing the negative consequences for international humanitarian efforts.
What’s Next
Justice Department lawyers noted that an additional $6.5 billion in foreign aid previously frozen would be spent by the end of the fiscal year on September 30. The ongoing legal battle has raised important questions about the power of the executive office, particularly regarding the decision not to disburse congressionally appropriated funds.
In August, an appeals court nullified an earlier order requiring the money to be spent but did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit. As the case continues to unfold, the implications for both the administration’s fiscal policies and the operational capacity of international humanitarian programs remain significant.
This is a developing story. We will update this article as more information becomes available.
