The Trump administration has petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to intervene in a high-stakes dispute over billions of dollars in foreign assistance funds. At the center of the clash is President Trump’s attempt to withhold money already appropriated by Congress, a move critics argue undermines the constitutional principle that grants Congress control over federal spending.
On Monday, Solicitor General D. John Sauer filed an emergency request asking the Court to suspend a lower court’s ruling that required the executive branch to release more than $4 billion in foreign aid before the end of September. The president has sought to prevent the distribution of those funds through a rarely used mechanism known as a “pocket rescission,” which allows the executive branch to propose canceling appropriated funds if Congress does not act within a specific timeframe.
The case also involves an additional $6.5 billion in foreign aid programs. While the Justice Department has assured the courts that those funds are being obligated before the close of the fiscal year, the $4 billion targeted by the administration’s rescission proposal remains at the center of the legal battle.
The legal conflict escalated after U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled last week that the administration is legally bound to spend the $4 billion as directed by Congress. Judge Ali held that the executive branch had no authority to withhold the funds outside the procedures explicitly outlined by federal law. The Justice Department immediately appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which declined to block Ali’s order, forcing the administration to seek urgent relief from the Supreme Court.
In his filing, Sauer argued that the injunction issued by the district court “raises a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers.” He insisted that forcing the administration to spend the contested aid undermines the president’s constitutional authority to manage foreign affairs and creates conflicting policy positions within the executive branch. “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,” Sauer wrote.
This latest dispute is part of a broader pattern since Mr. Trump returned to the White House. The administration has moved aggressively to cancel or freeze federal contracts and grants it deems inconsistent with the president’s priorities. On his first day of his second term, Mr. Trump signed an executive order instituting a 90-day pause on all foreign aid programs while officials reviewed whether each initiative should be continued or terminated. Congressional Democrats estimate that more than $425 billion in funding has been canceled or delayed under this directive.
The plaintiffs challenging the rescission include a coalition of nonprofit organizations and private businesses that rely on foreign assistance for their operations. They contend that the administration’s freeze violates both the Constitution and federal appropriations law. Their lawsuit asserts that the president’s unilateral decision has harmed organizations providing humanitarian relief, international development services, and other critical programs abroad. They argued that the 90-day freeze amounted to an unconstitutional exercise of executive authority.
This case has already made its way to the Supreme Court once before. In March, the justices narrowly divided 5–4 against an earlier request from the administration to keep $2 billion in aid frozen while the case progressed. Since then, a three-judge panel of the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the nonprofit and business plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. That decision vacated Judge Ali’s earlier order prohibiting the administration from impounding appropriated funds. However, the appeals court later amended its opinion to permit the plaintiffs to pursue relief on different legal grounds, reviving the case and keeping it alive in the courts.
Following the appeals court’s ruling, President Trump formally notified Congress that he intended to rescind $4.9 billion in foreign assistance. The proposal covers a wide range of funding streams, including allocations for the State Department, international development projects, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), an agency that Mr. Trump has previously signaled his intention to close. Such a unilateral move has not been attempted in nearly five decades, and even members of the president’s own party have expressed concern. One Republican lawmaker described the effort as “unlawful,” emphasizing that the Constitution unambiguously grants Congress control over federal expenditures.
Judge Ali, ruling again last week, sided with the plaintiffs and reaffirmed that the administration has a statutory duty to release the $4 billion in aid unless Congress itself acts to rescind it. He concluded that the executive branch cannot bypass appropriations law and assume unilateral spending authority. In his words, the administration’s rescission proposal could not override Congress’s clear instructions to distribute the money.
The Justice Department’s appeal to the Supreme Court now sets the stage for another major test of executive power. Sauer told the justices that Judge Ali’s order “puts the executive branch at war with itself” by requiring officials to implement funding that the president has explicitly sought to cancel.
The case raises profound constitutional questions about the limits of presidential authority in budgetary matters and the scope of Congress’s power of the purse. For the administration, the dispute is framed as a matter of executive flexibility in shaping foreign policy. For critics, it represents a dangerous precedent that could allow presidents to override Congress’s spending decisions and disrupt the balance of power enshrined in the Constitution.
The Court’s decision, which could arrive within days, will determine whether the Trump administration may continue its push to freeze aid or whether it must immediately comply with Congress’s appropriations mandate. The outcome is likely to shape not only the fate of billions in foreign aid but also the long-term relationship between Congress and the presidency in managing the nation’s finances.
