US Supreme Court backs Trump administration in $4 billion foreign aid dispute

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Friday in favour of President Donald Trump, granting his administration the authority to withhold approximately $4 billion in foreign aid that had been authorised by Congress for the current fiscal year.

Foreign media say that the decision represents another victory for Trump’s “America First” agenda, which has sought to scale back U.S. assistance abroad.

The justices overturned an order issued by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington, who had directed the administration to take immediate steps to release the aid.

Ali’s ruling came after aid groups filed a lawsuit challenging the administration’s decision.

At the centre of the case is the question of how much power the president holds to block or rescind funds that Congress has appropriated for programs conflicting with his policies.

Administration officials argued in court filings that the $4 billion in dispute ran “contrary to U.S. foreign policy.” Trump has repeatedly sought to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the main government agency overseeing foreign assistance.

The funds at issue were meant for foreign aid, United Nations peacekeeping operations, and democracy-promotion initiatives abroad. The government’s fiscal year ends on September 30, and Congress had already budgeted billions in foreign aid, including roughly $11 billion due to expire at the close of the fiscal year.

To halt the $4 billion, the administration attempted a rarely used tactic known as a “pocket rescission,” designed to avoid spending money already appropriated by Congress. Trump’s budget director, Russell Vought, argued that the president can withhold funds for 45 days after requesting a rescission, effectively running out the clock until the end of the fiscal year. The White House said the last time such a move was attempted was in 1977.

Judge Ali, in a September 3 ruling, rejected the administration’s approach, stating that the executive branch cannot simply choose not to comply with appropriations laws unless Congress formally changes them. He said the administration must spend the funds as directed by lawmakers.

Justice Department lawyers countered in their appeal, warning the Supreme Court that Ali’s injunction posed “a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers.” They wrote that it would be “self-defeating and senseless for the executive branch to obligate the very funds that it is asking Congress to rescind.”

The plaintiffs, including international aid organisations, argued that the administration’s manoeuvre “would provide the president unchecked power to rescind funds,” undermining Congress’s constitutional control over government spending.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, in a 2-1 ruling on September 5, upheld Ali’s order, which prompted the Trump administration to escalate the case to the Supreme Court. On September 9, the justices temporarily paused Ali’s decision while they considered the matter further.

The Supreme Court’s latest ruling reinforces a pattern this year in which the justices — who hold a 6-3 conservative majority — have consistently sided with Trump’s administration on contested policy issues. Since Trump’s return to the White House in January, the Court has backed his team in nearly every case it has reviewed.

In an earlier phase of this same foreign aid dispute, however, the Court ruled more narrowly. In March, by a 5-4 vote, the justices refused to allow the administration to withhold $2 billion in payments owed to aid organisations for work already completed under government contracts.

By Tamilla Hasanova