The United States Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision on Friday, endorsed President Donald Trump's action to halt more than $4 billion in foreign aid, a move that the administration initiated last month. The ruling provides the Trump administration with a notable victory by staying a lower court's mandate that had previously ordered the release of the funds.
This legal development arises from President Trump's utilization of what's termed a "pocket rescission," an uncommon executive maneuver that enables the president to cancel allocated funds if reported to Congress towards the close of the fiscal year. President Trump communicated his decision to cancel the aid, which encompassed $3.2 billion for U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs, $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations, to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA).
A White House Office of Management and Budget spokesperson hailed the decision as a "massive victory in restoring the President’s authority to implement his policies" and as a setback to "Left-wing groups’ ability to seize control of the president’s agenda," according to the New York Post.
The challenge to the funding freeze was brought by a number of nonprofits, including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and the Global Health Council, asserting that the rescission maneuver contravened federal law and would endanger vital international programs. U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta Ali, appointed by President Biden, had earlier ruled that the Trump administration could not withhold the funds without congressional consent, citing the Impoundment Control Act which requires "congressional action" to trigger rescission.
However, the Supreme Court's order does not conclusively determine whether Trump has the absolute authority to impound funds unilaterally; rather, it temporarily stops the lower court's injunction, enabling the administration to maintain the funding freeze while the legal battle continues. The majority opinion faced dissent from Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, with Kagan expressing concern that the majority's perspective grants the president overpowering control over agencies that Congress aimed to protect from political influence.
The timing of this ruling is significant as the Supreme Court is poised to deliberate a separate case regarding presidential power, specifically if Trump can dismiss Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter without cause. This forthcoming case will scrutinize the boundaries of presidential authority and the constitutionality of statutory protections for commissioners.
Trump's legal victory is also a political one, offering his administration increased leverage in shaping foreign aid policy and asserting the executive branch's broader powers. It is a direct counter to the efforts by lower courts and progressive organizations to challenge his policies, reinforcing executive authority in foreign affairs, and indicating the Supreme Court's readiness to support presidential powers against activist legal challenges.
