The U.S. Supreme Court just handed the Trump administration a significant win by extending a block on nearly $5 billion in foreign aid that Congress had already green-lighted.
According to Fox News, in a 6-3 decision on Friday, the court upheld a temporary order allowing the administration to keep these funds on ice, despite pushback from liberal justices and lingering questions about executive overreach.
This saga kicked off when Chief Justice John Roberts first issued a temporary block on September 9, putting a pause on a lower court ruling that challenged the administration’s move.
Before that, a district court judge had ruled that withholding these congressionally approved funds was likely unlawful, insisting that only Congress holds the purse strings on such matters.
Undeterred, the Department of Justice raced to the Supreme Court with an emergency appeal, arguing for the administration’s right to press pause on the cash flow.
President Trump, never one to shy away from bold moves, sent a letter last month to House Speaker Mike Johnson, invoking a rarely used “pocket rescission” to urge Congress to hold off on releasing the funds near the fiscal year’s end.
Here’s the kicker: federal law gives Congress 45 days to approve such a rescission, or the money must be spent—but with the budget year ending before that window closes, the White House claims congressional inaction means they’re off the hook.
This maneuver marks the first use of a pocket rescission in half a century, a throwback tactic that’s got critics scratching their heads and conservatives nodding in approval.
The funds in question, meant for U.N. peacekeeping and democracy-building abroad, were labeled by the administration as clashing with U.S. foreign policy—a classic “America First” stance that’s defined Trump’s approach to global spending.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority pointed to Trump’s broad authority over foreign policy as a key factor in their decision, though they were quick to note this isn’t the final word on the matter.
On the flip side, the three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warning, “The effect is to prevent the funds from reaching their intended recipients.”
They added that, due to the funds’ looming expiration, this block could mean the money never reaches its destination—a point that’s hard to ignore, though it’s equally tough to argue against prioritizing American interests over distant causes.
Let’s be real: in an era where every dollar counts at home, diverting billions to foreign initiatives—however noble—feels like a tough sell when American families are still grappling with tight budgets.
This ruling, while not the last chapter, signals a judiciary willing to give the executive branch some breathing room on foreign policy, even as progressive voices cry foul over what they see as a power grab—perhaps they’d rather see the money spent on global projects than on securing our own backyard.
