In a significant legal development, the Trump administration has asked the US Supreme Court for an emergency order to maintain the freeze on approximately $5 billion in foreign aid funds. These funds, previously approved by Congress, were recently targeted by President Trump, who indicated last month that he would withhold the allocation. Using presidential authority rarely exercised in the past five decades, Trump is attempting to block the funds, a move that has triggered serious legal challenges.
Edwardyne Ann Williams Montgomery Alabama Obituary: A Life of Strength, Grace, and Devotion
What Happened: The Legal Dispute Over Foreign Aid
US District Judge Amir Ali recently ruled that the administration’s attempt to withdraw these funds was unlawful. On August 28, in a letter addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson, President Trump announced that he would not allocate $4.9 billion in sanctioned foreign aid, effectively cutting the budget without congressional approval.
This tactic, often referred to as the “Pocket Rescission,” allows a president to notify Congress at the end of the fiscal year that certain funds should not be spent. However, this last-minute notification leaves Congress with little or no time to respond, raising constitutional concerns.
Judge Ali emphasized that such a decision requires explicit approval from Congress, rather than unilateral action by the president. The law clearly states that only Congress holds the authority to authorize or deny appropriations, not an individual executive notification.
Reactions: Supporters vs. Critics
The Trump administration defends the move, stating that reducing foreign aid is a key priority, despite its relatively small impact on the national deficit. Supporters argue that cutting aid ensures that taxpayer money is not spent on overseas programs that don’t benefit US interests.
However, critics warn that slashing foreign aid could undermine US influence abroad, particularly affecting food security, healthcare, and development projects in vulnerable countries. Following the lower court’s refusal to block Judge Ali’s decision, the administration sought Supreme Court intervention to maintain its stance.
Solicitor General D. John Sareer described the lower court ruling as an “illegal prohibition,” claiming it disrupts the balance between government branches and creates unnecessary conflict.
Meanwhile, lawyers representing non-profit organizations and international aid groups argue that freezing funds violates federal law and threatens essential humanitarian programs. Attorney Lauren Betman of the Public Citizen Litigation Group criticized the administration for seeking Supreme Court relief in a case of its own making, warning of adverse effects on global relief efforts.
What’s Next: A High-Stakes Legal Battle
The Department of Justice stated that an additional $6.5 billion in frozen foreign aid would remain unused by the end of the fiscal year on September 30. This legal battle raises fundamental questions about the extent of presidential authority and the role of Congress in controlling federal funds.
In August, a federal appeals court scaled back the lower court’s order, requiring that some funds be spent but without dismissing the core issues. As the case proceeds, its outcome will likely have far-reaching implications for both domestic fiscal policy and international humanitarian programs.
1 thought on “Trump Administration Requests Emergency Supreme Court Order to Maintain Freeze on Foreign Aid Funds”