Poli Alert Politics & Civics
Related Articles
The Supreme Court on Friday handed a major victory to the Trump administration, allowing it to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid funds that Congress had already approved — a move that critics say undermines the constitutional separation of powers and endangers vital humanitarian programs abroad.
In a brief, unsigned order, the court said the administration made a “sufficient showing” that the nonprofit groups challenging the freeze were barred from suing under the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law that limits the president’s power to block spending authorized by Congress.
The 6–3 ruling, issued without oral arguments or a full written opinion, effectively pauses a lower court’s order that would have required the administration to distribute the funds by the end of the month. The Trump administration has said it intends to rescind the money permanently, claiming it has the authority to withhold certain funds for diplomatic or budgetary reasons.
“This result further erodes separation of powers principles that are fundamental to our constitutional order,” said Nicolas Sansome, an attorney with Public Citizen Litigation Group, which represents several aid organizations that sued. “It will also have a grave humanitarian impact.”
The three liberal justices — Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson — dissented, warning that the decision sets a troubling precedent.
Justice Kagan, writing for the dissenters, said the court was operating in “uncharted territory” by intervening without the benefit of arguments or a factual record.
“We therefore should have denied this application, allowed the lower courts to go forward, and ensured that the weighty question presented here receives the consideration it deserves,” she wrote.
The decision marks the 20th emergency ruling granted to the Trump administration since his second term began in January — an extraordinary rate that has drawn criticism from legal scholars and lower court judges for bypassing normal judicial procedures.
The dispute stems from the administration’s notification to Congress earlier this month that it planned to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid, even though lawmakers had already approved the funds for distribution in the current fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30.
The White House said it will still distribute $6.5 billion of the foreign aid package, but will block the remaining portion pending “review.” Critics called the tactic a “pocket rescission” — a rarely used end-of-year maneuver to avoid congressional response — that has not been attempted since the Nixon administration.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled earlier this month that the administration must release the funds unless Congress explicitly votes to withdraw them. But the administration appealed, and Chief Justice John Roberts granted a temporary stay on Sept. 9 before the full court acted Friday.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that forcing the executive branch to release the money would infringe on the president’s authority to conduct foreign affairs and negotiate with other countries.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the ruling.
Democratic lawmakers blasted the decision as a dangerous erosion of congressional power.
“Republicans should join Democrats to stand up for our power of the purse,” said Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) in a joint statement. “The Constitution gives Congress, not the president, control over spending.”
The ruling intensifies a broader clash between the Trump administration and Congress over control of federal spending. The administration’s aggressive stance toward foreign aid — including efforts to restructure or scale back the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) — has already drawn concern from humanitarian groups and diplomats worldwide.
With less than a week left in the fiscal year, Congress now faces growing pressure to reassert its spending authority — even as lawmakers race to avoid a potential government shutdown on Oct. 1.
