Trump Administration Seeks Supreme Court’s Help on Foreign Aid Freeze
In a significant legal move, the Trump administration has requested an emergency order from the Supreme Court to maintain a freeze on billions of dollars in foreign aid. This decision centers around nearly $5 billion approved by Congress, funding that President Trump indicated he would not spend last month, using authority previously invoked by a president around fifty years ago.
Recently, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled that the administration’s choice to withhold these funds was likely illegal. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson on August 28, Trump stated he wouldn’t allocate $4.9 billion in approved foreign aid, effectively reducing the budget without it going through Congress.
This tactic, known as a “pocket rescission,” allows a president to inform Congress at the end of the budget year that specific funds should not be spent. Unfortunately, this last-minute announcement leaves Congress without enough time to respond, meaning the money remains unspent.
Judge Ali emphasized that for the Trump administration to proceed with withholding funds, Congress must approve a rescission proposal. He noted that the law clearly stipulates that congressional action, not simply a presidential notification, is required to trigger such a rescission.
The Trump administration has made it clear that cutting foreign aid is a cornerstone of its policy, despite the relatively small financial impact compared to the national deficit and the potential negative effects on the U.S.’s standing globally, especially as it affects food supplies and development programs in other countries. In light of the appeals court’s refusal to block Judge Ali’s ruling, the administration is appealing to the Supreme Court.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer described the lower court’s ruling as an “unlawful injunction” causing unnecessary conflict between branches of government, and urged the justices to intervene.
On the other hand, attorneys for nonprofit organizations that challenged the government’s decision argued that it is the funding freeze itself that contravenes federal law, adversely affecting critical lifesaving programs abroad. Attorney Lauren Bateman from the Public Citizen Litigation Group criticized the administration for repeatedly seeking Supreme Court intervention over issues it created.
Additionally, Justice Department lawyers mentioned that another $6.5 billion in aid previously frozen would be spent by the end of the fiscal year on September 30.
The ongoing legal battle has raised important questions about the power of the executive office, particularly regarding the decision not to disburse congressionally appropriated funds. In August, an appeals court nullified an earlier order requiring the money to be spent, but they did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit.
As this case continues to unfold, the implications for both the administration’s fiscal policies and the operational capacity of humanitarian programs abroad remain significant.
