The Supreme Court on Friday granted the Trump administration a significant victory, allowing it to freeze $4 billion in foreign aid that was approved by Congress last year.
The contested funds were allocated for purposes including global health and HIV programs, which President Donald Trump has deemed wasteful. The administration has been pursuing a two-pronged strategy to block the spending, challenging it in federal court while also seeking to formally “rescind” the funds through Congress.
This ruling could establish a precedent for future presidents to cancel congressionally approved funding. It also arrives as Congress faces a Tuesday night deadline to fund the government and avoid a federal shutdown.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented from the majority decision.
In a brief, unsigned order, the court’s majority stated that the administration’s argument—that being forced to spend the money would interfere with its “conduct of foreign affairs”—appeared to “outweigh the potential harm” to the nonprofit groups seeking the funds. The court emphasized that the order was not a final determination on the case’s merits but rather a preliminary decision based on standards for interim relief.
Writing for the dissenters, Justice Kagan countered that complying with spending laws is “just the price of living under a Constitution that gives Congress the power to make spending decisions.” She added, “If those laws require obligation of the money… then the executive must comply. It cannot be heard to complain, as it does here, that the laws clash with the president’s differing view of ‘American values’ and ‘American interests.’”
Kagan also criticized the majority for deciding the case on its emergency docket, a fast-track process that has faced growing scrutiny for repeatedly siding with the Trump administration with limited explanation. “We have had to consider this application on a short fuse – less than three weeks,” she wrote, noting the absence of full briefings, oral arguments, or deliberation.
The administration has targeted programs it claims conflict with “American values,” such as micro-insurance for Colombian farmers recovering from climate disasters and efforts to build “climate resilience in Honduras.”
Nonprofit organizations that rely on the funding sued the administration in February, calling the cuts an “unconstitutional exercise of executive power.” They noted that other affected programs include an effort to aid victims of torture. Scott Roehm, a director at the Center for Victims of Torture, one of the plaintiffs, said, “The administration is abandoning torture victims to serve a naked political agenda, nothing more.”
The case raises fundamental questions about the separation of powers and presidential authority. It has become intertwined with budget negotiations on Capitol Hill as the administration attempts to cancel the spending using a “pocket rescission.” Under federal law, if the administration notifies Congress of a proposed rescission, lawmakers have 45 days to approve it; otherwise, the money must be spent. In this instance, the White House sent its notice within 45 days of the September 30 fiscal year-end, effectively trying to run out the clock until the funding authorization expires.
The case has moved through multiple federal courts. After U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled against the administration, an appeals court reversed his decision before later allowing a narrow portion of the lawsuit to proceed. When Ali again ordered the funds to be spent, the administration filed an emergency appeal with the Supreme Court.
