In a striking decision, the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid, pausing a lower court mandate that had ordered the funds to be distributed, the Daily Caller reported.
In essence, the Supreme Court's ruling temporarily blocks a district court order, permitting the administration to retain the funds while raising critical questions about the balance of power between Congress and the President over foreign policy and financial appropriations.
The controversy began earlier this year when President Trump canceled the $4 billion in foreign aid through a mechanism known as a "pocket recession," a move that halted the funds from reaching their intended recipients.
In early September, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, appointed by President Biden, issued an order directing the Trump administration to release the funds by September 30.
Judge Ali's ruling would have compelled the administration to act swiftly, initiating diplomatic talks with foreign nations and notifying Congress of planned obligations.
However, the Trump administration contested this directive, arguing it posed a severe threat to the separation of powers and disrupted foreign policy objectives.
Solicitor General John Sauer, in an emergency application filed on September 8, emphasized the urgency of halting the lower court’s order.
He noted that immediate compliance would force diplomatic engagements the President deemed harmful to national interests, alongside mandatory notifications to Congress.
Sauer stated, “To have any hope of complying in time, the Executive Branch would have to immediately commence diplomatic discussions with foreign nations about the use of those funds—discussions the President considers counterproductive to foreign policy—and notify Congress about planned obligations that the President is strongly opposing.”
The Supreme Court, in its Friday ruling, sided with the administration, temporarily stopping Judge Ali’s order from taking effect.
The court’s decision highlighted that the potential damage to the Executive’s ability to manage foreign affairs appeared greater than the harm to those awaiting the aid.
As stated in the court’s order, “On the record before the Court, the asserted harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.”
Justice Elena Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, dissented, underscoring the deeper implications of the court’s action.
Kagan wrote, “I appreciate that the majority refrains from offering a definitive view of this dispute and the questions raised in it.”
She added, “But the effect of its ruling is to allow the Executive to cease obligating $4 billion in funds that Congress appropriated for foreign aid, and that will now never reach its intended recipients.”
