SUPREME COURT DELIVERS MAJOR WIN FOR TRUMP 1IN FOREIGN AID BATTLE

The U.S. Supreme Court has cleared the way for the federal government to halt more than $4 billion in foreign aid payments—funds that President Donald Trump sought to cancel last month through a rarely used mechanism known as “pocket rescission.”

In a 6–3 decision, the justices approved the Trump administration’s emergency request, effectively blocking a lower court ruling that had ordered the release of the already allocated funds.

A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget described the ruling as a significant victory, stating that it restores the president’s authority to implement policy decisions.

The spokesperson added that the decision prevents outside groups from interfering with the administration’s agenda.

A majority of the justices indicated that the potential harm to the executive branch’s ability to conduct foreign affairs likely outweighs the risks faced by the parties challenging the decision.

According to The Washington Post, those affected include organizations such as the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, the Journalism Development Network, the Center for Victims of Torture, and the Global Health Council.

However, the Court’s ruling stopped short of addressing a broader constitutional issue: whether President Trump has the authority to unilaterally withhold, or “impound,” funds that have already been approved by Congress.

In recent weeks, Trump informed House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) of his plan to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid.

The proposed cuts include $3.2 billion in programs administered by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations.

The administration used a procedural tool known as a “pocket rescission,” submitting the request to Congress just days before the fiscal year deadline on September 30.

Because of the timing, the proposal would take effect automatically, regardless of congressional action—marking the first use of such a maneuver in nearly five decades.

Much of the disputed funding had been allocated to nonprofit groups that are now suing the administration, as well as to foreign governments.

Earlier this month, U.S. District Judge Amit Mehta, appointed by President Biden, ruled that the administration could not withhold the funds without congressional approval. In his opinion, Mehta emphasized that Congress had not acted on the rescission proposal, writing that the Impoundment Control Act clearly requires legislative approval—not merely a presidential request—to cancel previously appropriated funds.

Nonprofit organizations challenging the freeze argue that the use of pocket rescission violates federal law and threatens critical, life-saving programs overseas.

Three justices—Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson—dissented from the Court’s decision.

Separately, the Supreme Court announced earlier this week that it will hear a case on Monday concerning whether President Trump has the authority to remove members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause.

The outcome could have far-reaching implications for presidential power and the independence of federal agencies.

In a brief order, the Supreme Court said that former President Donald Trump may remove Federal Trade Commission Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case continues.

The stay allowing her dismissal will remain in effect until the Court issues a final ruling, expected in December.

At the center of the case is a constitutional question: whether laws that shield FTC commissioners from being removed without cause violate the separation of powers.

The Court is also being asked to reconsider its 1935 precedent that upheld such protections.

In addition, the justices will examine whether lower federal courts have the authority to block presidential removals, as they did when Trump dismissed several Democratic-appointed officials.

The decision drew dissent from Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson.

Writing for the dissent, Kagan warned that the order effectively grants the president sweeping authority over independent agencies—institutions Congress designed to operate outside direct political control.

“He can now fire any member he wants, for any reason or no reason at all,” Kagan argued, despite statutory limits set by Congress. She added that such power could undermine the independence and bipartisan structure of these agencies.