Chief Justice John Roberts on Tuesday temporarily left in place President Donald Trump’s decision to freeze nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, acting on an emergency appeal to the Supreme Court that pauses lower-court rulings in a high-stakes dispute over executive spending power.
The order, which is temporary, preserves the administration’s use of a so-called pocket rescission — a late-year presidential request to Congress not to spend already appropriated funds that effectively prevents lawmakers from acting within the required 45-day window. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had ruled last week that Congress would have to approve such a decision to withhold the funding, a conclusion that the administration has challenged as it sought immediate relief from the high court.
Trump informed House Speaker Mike Johnson in a letter dated Aug. 28 that he would not spend $4.9 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress, effectively cutting the budget without legislative approval. The rescission notice invoked authority that has been used sparingly by presidents; court filings and legal observers have noted it was last broadly employed about five decades ago.
The litigation has moved through the courts for months. In August, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit threw out an earlier injunction that had required the money to be spent, but the panel did not dismiss the underlying lawsuit. After the president issued his rescission notice, plaintiffs returned to district court and Judge Ali issued the order now under review by the Supreme Court. Ali wrote that the case raises questions of “immense legal and practical importance,” including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds.
Justice Department lawyers told a federal judge last month that an additional $6.5 billion in foreign aid subject to previous holds would be released and spent before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The administration has made significant reductions to foreign aid a central policy priority, a move that officials say reflects budgetary and policy considerations. Critics have warned the cuts could harm U.S. influence abroad and disrupt assistance programs that provide food, health and development services to vulnerable populations.
The Supreme Court’s stay does not resolve the underlying legal questions, but it signals the justices may be inclined to reverse the lower-court ruling that withholding the funding was likely illegal. The case now awaits further briefing and argument at the high court, where justices will decide whether the executive branch may unilaterally withhold appropriated funds under the circumstances presented.
Litigation timelines and court filings indicate a fast-moving docket on the issue, given the fiscal-year deadline and the immediate consequences for aid recipients. For now, the temporary hold by Chief Justice Roberts keeps the Trump administration’s freeze intact while the Supreme Court considers whether to grant longer-term relief or to allow lower-court judgments requiring congressional approval to stand.