In a stunning win for presidential power, the Supreme Court has handed President Trump the ability to block $4 billion in foreign assistance funds that Congress had approved but he refused to spend.
The Washington Times reported that this decision, delivered just days before the fiscal year deadline, signals a major shift in how executive authority can intersect with congressional spending mandates. It’s a punchy reminder that the judiciary can still tilt toward pragmatic governance over bureaucratic overreach.
The ruling, issued on Friday, overturns a lower court decision and allows Trump to execute what’s known as a “pocket rescission,” effectively letting the funds lapse by the fiscal year’s end on September 30, 2025.
This saga began with a much larger pot of money—$30 billion in foreign aid that Trump halted on his first day in office. Over time, he agreed to release most of it, whittling the disputed amount down to $10.5 billion by August 2025, and finally to the current $4 billion after further concessions. It’s a slow grind, but one that shows Trump’s tenacity in reshaping spending priorities.
Here’s the clever part: Trump sent a rescissions package to Congress at just the right moment, ensuring the 45-day grace period—during which he’s not required to spend the money—stretched past the fiscal year’s end.
By running out the clock, he’s managed to sidestep the obligation to disburse the $4 billion. It’s a masterclass in using legal loopholes to prioritize America’s interests over foreign handouts.
Initially, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali pushed back, ruling that Trump couldn’t simply refuse to spend funds Congress had lawfully allocated. Ali argued the law binds the executive to comply unless Congress changes it. But let’s be honest—laws shouldn’t be straitjackets when national strategy is at stake.
The Supreme Court’s majority disagreed with Ali, stating that Trump’s foreign policy powers trump the immediate needs of nongovernmental organizations counting on these funds.
They clarified this isn’t a final verdict, just a hold on the lower court’s ruling, but the effect is clear: the money stays blocked. It’s a practical nod to executive discretion, not a blank check for endless delays.
This isn’t the first time the high court has backed Trump in 2025—earlier in February, they partially supported Judge Ali by requiring the funds to be obligated on a relaxed timeline.
But now, with this latest order, the balance tips firmly toward the president. It’s part of a broader trend where the court has upheld Trump on immigration, spending, and executive firing powers.
Democrats, predictably, are up in arms, claiming this ruling opens the door to “abuse of power” by allowing a president to sidestep spending laws. Rep. Brendan Boyle, a leading Democrat on the House Budget Committee, warned, “It won’t stop there.” But isn’t this just sour grapes over losing control of the purse strings?
Boyle’s fear that Trump could extend this tactic to disaster relief or public health programs sounds like a slippery slope argument designed to scare rather than inform.
If Congress wants tighter rules, they can write them—until then, the Constitution gives the executive room to maneuver. It’s not abuse; it’s accountability to the voters who elected Trump to put America first.
Justice Elena Kagan, in her dissent, lamented, “The effect of its ruling is to allow the Executive to cease obligating $4 billion in funds that Congress appropriated for foreign aid.”
She added that this money “will now never reach its intended recipients.” But with all due respect to the justice, isn’t the real issue Congress overreaching on foreign commitments while domestic needs languish?
Kagan also argued, “That is just the price of living under a Constitution that gives Congress the power to make spending decisions.” Fair point, but when those decisions clash with a president’s duty to steer foreign policy, someone has to break the tie—and the court wisely chose executive clarity over legislative gridlock.
The majority opinion countered that the government made a strong initial case under the Impoundment Control Act to block lawsuits pushing for the funds’ release. It’s not a slam dunk yet, but it’s a signal the court isn’t buying into the progressive push to micromanage every dollar through the judiciary. That’s a refreshing dose of restraint.
For now, this ruling is seen as a quiet endorsement of the “pocket rescission” tactic, a strategy that lets a president delay spending until funds expire.
It’s not flashy, but it’s effective—and it’s hard to argue it doesn’t align with a mandate to rethink where taxpayer money goes. Why should billions flow overseas when border security or infrastructure crumbles at home?
Critics might call this a dangerous precedent, but supporters see it as a necessary check on congressional overreach in foreign policy. The court’s decision ensures Trump can focus on national priorities without being bogged down by endless legal challenges from activist groups. It’s a win for governance over red tape.
