Trump Admin Seeks Supreme Court Freeze on $5B Foreign Aid/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ The Trump administration has asked the U.S. Supreme Court for an emergency order to freeze nearly $5 billion in foreign aid. A federal judge recently ruled the freeze likely violates congressional authority. The case could test the limits of presidential control over appropriated funds.
Trump Foreign Aid Freeze: Quick Looks
- Trump seeks Supreme Court intervention to halt foreign aid
- $4.9 billion in aid withheld via “pocket rescission”
- Lower court ruled the freeze likely unlawful
- Legal battle may set precedent on executive budget power
- DOJ says $6.5 billion still to be distributed
- Nonprofits claim withheld funds harm lifesaving global programs
- Appeals court refused to block lower court ruling
- Supreme Court now weighing emergency request
- Budget deadline looms on September 30
- First such use of rescission authority in 50 years
Deep Look
Trump Asks Supreme Court to Freeze $5 Billion in Foreign Aid Amid Legal Battle
WASHINGTON — In a high-stakes fiscal clash with Congress, President Donald Trump has asked the U.S. Supreme Court to issue an emergency order allowing his administration to keep nearly $5 billion in foreign aid frozen — just weeks before the fiscal year ends.
The emergency request, filed Monday, marks a pivotal moment in the administration’s ongoing effort to assert executive control over congressionally approved spending, and comes after a series of court rulings rejected the president’s legal rationale for withholding the funds.
What Is a “Pocket Rescission”?
The dispute centers on Trump’s use of a rarely invoked maneuver known as a pocket rescission. Under the Impoundment Control Act, a president can propose to withhold funds late in the fiscal year by sending a “special message” to Congress. However, Congress must approve the rescission within 45 days for it to be valid.
The Trump administration attempted to circumvent this rule by issuing the rescission message late enough in the year that Congress would have no time to respond, effectively allowing the funds to expire unspent by September 30.
Judge Calls Move Illegal
Last week, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that Trump’s maneuver was likely illegal, saying it bypassed the will of Congress, which had explicitly approved the foreign aid in legislation. In his opinion, Ali wrote:
“It is congressional action — not the President’s transmission of a special message — that triggers rescission of the earlier appropriations.”
Ali emphasized that only Congress can rescind previously approved spending, underlining the balance of powers embedded in the Constitution.
Appeals Court Refuses to Intervene
The Trump administration swiftly appealed, but a federal appellate panel refused to block Judge Ali’s ruling, prompting the White House to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.
The Justice Department told the court that the freeze is necessary to allow further legal review, while also disclosing that another $6.5 billion in previously frozen aid will be distributed before the September 30 deadline, unless blocked by the court.
Impact on Global Programs
The aid in question was earmarked for a range of humanitarian and development programs, many of which are designed to address urgent needs such as hunger relief, disease prevention, and refugee support.
A coalition of nonprofit organizations filed the original lawsuit challenging the aid freeze. They argue the freeze has already caused severe disruptions in critical programs, particularly in war-torn and disaster-stricken areas.
“Lives are at stake. This funding freeze has halted essential medical and food supplies,” said one plaintiff representing a global health NGO.
A Rare Constitutional Test
If the Supreme Court agrees to take up the case, it will become one of the most significant fiscal authority tests in decades, possibly clarifying the boundaries of executive vs. legislative power in budget enforcement.
This is the first time in over 50 years that a president has attempted to use a pocket rescission to effectively override congressional spending authority. Legal scholars say the outcome could shape how presidents approach budgetary discretion in the future.
The Road Ahead
With September 30 — the end of the fiscal year — fast approaching, the court’s response could determine whether the funds are released in time or permanently withheld. If the court declines to block the lower court’s ruling, the administration will likely be forced to distribute the aid as appropriated.
If the court agrees to intervene, it may freeze the funds indefinitely until a broader constitutional question is resolved — a timeline that could stretch beyond the fiscal year.
As of now, no official timeline has been announced for the Supreme Court’s decision on the emergency request, but a response could come within days due to the urgency of the matter.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.