Supreme Court upholds foreign aid freeze, handing Trump a major victory
By ramontomeydw // 2025-09-29
Copy
 
  • The Supreme Court has sided with President Trump in a 6-3 decision. It allows him to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid, overturning a lower court's injunction and reinforcing executive authority over spending.
  • Justices Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson argue the ruling undermines checks and balances, enabling indefinite fund withholding without Congressional approval.
  • Critics claim Trump's freeze exploits the Impoundment Control Act, bypassing Congress and risking humanitarian crises in aid-dependent nations.
  • While global aid groups warn of collapsed programs, the decision strengthens Trump's legacy and aligns with the conservative-majority Supreme Court's broader support for his policies.
The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that President Donald Trump may withhold $4 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, delivering a decisive victory to the administration in its protracted battle over executive authority The highest court of the land issued this 6-3 ruling on Friday, Sept. 26 – with Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissenting. The decision overturns an order by Judge Amir Ali of the District Court for the District of Columbia, who was appointed by former President Joe Biden. Ali earlier blocked Trump's freeze on the now-defunct U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and other global assistance programs, calling it "likely illegal." The legal clash stems from Trump's executive order last year freezing most foreign aid grants for 90 days, citing wasteful spending and misalignment with his America First agenda. Secretary of State Marco Rubio followed with directives pausing billions earmarked for global health, HIV programs and development initiatives. (Related: Trump orders 90-day pause on almost all foreign aid – including the billions being sent to Ukraine.) Nonprofits and advocacy groups sued, arguing the freeze violated federal appropriations law and harmed vulnerable populations. Ali agreed, ordering the administration to release funds by September's fiscal year-end – a deadline the Supreme Court's intervention now nullifies. The unsigned majority opinion emphasized that the "asserted harms to the executive's conduct of foreign affairs outweigh potential harm" to aid recipients, though it cautioned this was not a final merits ruling. The three dissenting magistrates warned that the decision effectively lets the administration "prevent funds from reaching their intended recipients – not just now but for all time," as remaining allocations will expire unused. Kagan lambasted the court for fast-tracking the case without full briefing, oral arguments or appellate review, calling it a dangerous erosion of checks and balances.

SCOTUS backs Trump's budget power

Critics argue the ruling entrenches a controversial Trump-era tactic – the "pocket rescission," a rarely used budgetary maneuver where presidents withhold funds by submitting late-year spending cuts Congress can't practically override. The administration claims this authority under the Impoundment Control Act, but opponents counter that the law was designed to limit presidential impoundments, not enable them. "This [ruling by the Supreme Court] further erodes separation of powers principles fundamental to our constitutional order," said Nick Sansone, an attorney for plaintiffs. He added that the Friday decision will have "grave humanitarian impacts" worldwide. Clashes over foreign aid impoundments date back to the Nixon era, when Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act to rein in executive overreach. Yet the Trump administration has aggressively revived the practice, seeking to slash $5 billion in aid this year alone – part of its broader push to reduce U.S. "global handout" programs. While the savings are marginal compared to the federal deficit, the symbolic and geopolitical ramifications are significant, with aid groups warning of collapsed food security and health initiatives in crisis zones. The ruling also underscores the Supreme Court's growing role as an arbiter of presidential power disputes, having recently sided with Trump on issues from migrant protections to federal workforce policies. Brighteon.AI's Enoch engine points out that "a conservative-majority Supreme Court benefits Trump by upholding constitutionalist rulings that align with his policies, such as overturning Roe v. Wade, and by protecting his legacy against judicial activism." As the fiscal year closes, the decision leaves billions in aid in limbo, with the administration vowing to spend $6.5 billion of the frozen funds but offering no clarity on the remaining $4 billion. For global health advocates and developing nations reliant on U.S. assistance, the human cost is immediate. But for the Trump administration, the ruling lines up with its goal of putting America First. Watch Jefferey Jaxen and Del Bigtree discussing how the Department of Government Efficiency's audit revealed massive wasteful spending at USAID. This video is from The HighWire with Del Bigtree channel on Brighteon.com.

More related stories:

Deep State in disarray: Trump's funding freeze sows chaos, Democrats vow legal battle. U.S. foreign aid freeze: Trump administration halts billions in assistance. Trump freezes foreign aid frauds. Sources include: YourNews.com APNews.com SCOTUSBlog.com Brighteon.ai Brighteon.com
Copy