On Friday, the Supreme Court permitted the federal government to withhold over $4 billion in foreign aid payments that President Trump attempted to cancel through an unusual “pocket rescission” last month.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court accepted the Trump administration’s emergency petition to overturn a federal ruling from September 3, which mandated the disbursement of previously allocated funds by Congress.
According to a spokesperson from the White House Office of Management and Budget, “This represents a significant victory in re-establishing the President’s ability to implement his policies.”
Additionally, the spokesperson claimed, “The power of left-leaning entities to control the President’s agenda has been curtailed.”
The majority opinion from the justices stated that the “detrimental impact on the Executive’s conduct of foreign relations seems to overshadow the possible harm faced by the respondents,” which include several advocacy organizations such as the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the Journalism Development Network, the Center for Victims of Torture, and the Global Health Council.
However, the Supreme Court’s verdict did not tackle the larger issue concerning Trump’s authority to unilaterally “impound” congressional appropriations.
This ruling succeeded an emergency order from Chief Justice John Roberts earlier this month, which temporarily partly stayed an order by District Judge Amir Ali, stating that foreign aid spending would be “subject to the President’s proposal for rescission submitted on August 28, 2025.”
Trump informed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of his intention to annul more than $4 billion in foreign aid disbursements last month. This includes $3.2 billion allocated as development assistance by the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), $322 million from the USAID-State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million from the State Department for international organizations.
The pocket rescission request was submitted to Congress at a time so late in the fiscal year—ending on September 30—that it would take effect regardless of congressional approval.
This maneuver has not seen use by a president in nearly half a century.
The funds were intended for nonprofit organizations involved in litigation against the Trump administration, along with foreign governments.
Earlier this month, Judge Ali, a Biden appointee, determined that for the Trump administration to withhold the funds, Congress would need to approve the rescission proposal.
“To date, Congress has not responded to the President’s proposal regarding rescission by taking action to rescind the funds,” Ali noted. “And the [Impoundment Control Act] clearly states that congressional action—not simply the President’s submission of a special message—triggers the rescission of previously allocated appropriations.”
The nonprofit organizations pursuing legal action against the Trump administration contended that the pocket rescission breached federal law and jeopardized vital, life-saving initiatives abroad.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from Friday’s ruling.
In her dissent, Kagan stated, “[T]he implications of today’s ruling are significant. While I recognize that the majority has refrained from presenting a decisive stance on this issue, the effect of their decision is to allow the Executive to stop allocating $4 billion in funds that Congress has approved for foreign aid, which will consequently not reach those who need it most.”
Kagan concluded, “As this outcome violates the separation of powers, I must respectfully dissent.”
