Folks, it looks like President Trump just hit a judicial brick wall in his latest bid to trim the fat from foreign aid spending.
On Friday, September 5, 2025, a federal appeals court shot down the administration’s attempt to withhold nearly $5 billion in preapproved foreign aid, affirming a lower court’s ruling that the move was likely against the law, The Hill reported.
Let’s rewind to late August 2025, when President Trump notified Congress of his intent to slash $4.9 billion in funding meant for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development through a maneuver called “pocket rescission.” It’s a bold move, no question, and one that many on the right see as a necessary check on runaway spending. But, as we’re learning, boldness doesn’t always equal legality.
Fast forward to September 3, 2025, when U.S. District Judge Amir Ali dropped a hammer, criticizing the administration for refusing to release funds that Congress had already greenlit. Judge Ali didn’t mince words, suggesting the executive branch can’t just ignore statutory mandates.
“Defendants have given no justification to displace the bedrock expectation that Congress’s appropriations must be followed,” Judge Ali stated. Well, that’s a nice sentiment, but one wonders if the judiciary is overreaching into policy territory here—shouldn’t the president have some say over how taxpayer dollars are spent?
Just two days later, on September 5, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit backed Judge Ali’s decision in a 2-1 ruling, refusing to block the release of the funds. It’s a tough pill for those of us who believe in fiscal restraint, but the law seems clear to the majority of these judges.
The appeals court panel, made up of Justices Cornelia Pillard, Florence Pan, and Justin Walker, split along predictable lines, with Pillard and Pan—appointees of Obama and Biden, respectively—siding against Trump, while Walker, a Trump appointee, dissented. It’s hard not to see this as politics dressed in judicial robes, even if the majority’s reasoning holds legal water.
“Appellants have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal,” the panel declared. Fair enough, but one can’t help but ask if this “stringent” standard is just a polite way of saying “we don’t like your policy.” Turns out, even in the courts, ideology often lurks beneath the gavel.
Meanwhile, opposition to Trump’s rescission plan wasn’t just judicial—Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, called it an “attempt to undermine the law.” Now, with all due respect to Senator Collins, isn’t it the job of a leader to challenge bloated budgets, not just rubber-stamp them? It’s a fair question for conservatives to ponder.
The heart of this ruling, according to the appeals court, is that withholding the funding was likely illegal, a direct jab at the administration’s strategy. For those of us who support Trump’s America First agenda, this stings, but we must acknowledge the importance of following the letter of the law, even when it’s inconvenient.
Look, $4.9 billion isn’t pocket change, and redirecting it—or cutting it—could signal to the world that the U.S. isn’t an endless ATM for foreign interests. Yet, the courts seem more concerned with process than principle, and that’s a tough reality for many on the right to swallow.
Critics of the decision might argue that this is just another example of the judiciary meddling in executive priorities, especially when progressive-leaning judges are involved. But let’s be honest—rules are rules, and if the administration’s approach didn’t pass muster, they’ll need a better playbook next time.
For now, the administration is on the back foot, forced to release the funds as mandated by both the district and appeals courts. It’s a setback, no doubt, but it’s also a reminder that governing isn’t just about bold strokes—it’s about navigating a maze of legal constraints.
So, where does this leave us? Conservatives who cheer Trump’s push to prioritize domestic needs over foreign handouts are left frustrated, but perhaps this ruling can spark a broader conversation about how Congress allocates billions without enough oversight.
In the end, while the appeals court’s decision may feel like a win for the establishment, it’s also a call to action for those who believe in reining in federal overreach—whether it’s in spending or judicial activism. Let’s hope this isn’t the final word, but rather the start of a smarter fight for fiscal sanity. After all, if we’re going to drain the swamp, we’ll need more than just good intentions—we’ll need an airtight strategy.
