In a high-stakes constitutional clash just weeks before the fiscal year ends, the Supreme Court has stepped in — at least temporarily — to allow President Donald Trump to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid funds, despite a federal judge’s ruling that would have forced the administration to spend the money by September 30.
The brief order, issued by Chief Justice John Roberts, halts a ruling from U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, a Biden appointee, who had ordered the executive branch to disburse the congressionally appropriated aid immediately. Roberts’ stay doesn’t resolve the underlying legal battle, but it does buy Trump time, and signals that the high court sees real weight in the administration’s arguments.
At the core of this case is the friction between two pillars of U.S. governance: Congress’s power of the purse versus the executive’s discretion in foreign affairs.
Trump’s team is invoking a relatively obscure maneuver known as a “pocket rescission” — a procedural tactic where the president notifies Congress of an intent to withhold funds so late in the fiscal year that, in effect, Congress has no time to challenge the decision.
Critics call it an end-run around legislative authority. Supporters argue it’s well within presidential discretion, especially when it concerns foreign policy strategy.
The Trump administration’s legal team, led by Solicitor General John Sauer, didn’t mince words in its application to the court. Forcing the disbursement of funds, they argued, would “raise a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers,” compelling the White House to engage in “counterproductive” diplomatic negotiations and tie the president’s hands on matters where he has constitutionally granted latitude.
OMB Director Russ Vought backed the move publicly, walking a careful constitutional line at the National Conservatism Conference: “We would never view that Congress doesn’t have the power of the purse, but the executive has the power to spend.”
That’s the battleground: Congress can allocate, but who controls the timing — and strategic application — of those dollars?
With Roberts giving plaintiffs until Friday to respond, this case is moving on a fast track. The timeline is critical: if the lower court’s ruling is reinstated, the funds must be spent by September 30 or expire unused, rendering the case moot. That makes the stakes both legal and tactical.