President Trump just hit a judicial wall in his bid to slash nearly $5 billion in foreign aid.
The Hill reported that a federal appeals court shot down the administration’s attempt to withhold preapproved funding, upholding a lower court’s ruling that deemed the move likely against the law.
Let’s rewind to late August, when Trump notified Congress of his intent to rescind a hefty $4.9 billion allocated to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
This wasn’t just a budget trim—it was a rare maneuver known as a “pocket rescission,” a move that raised eyebrows across Capitol Hill. Even Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, called it an “attempt to undermine the law.”
Collins’ critique seems mild compared to what came next. On Wednesday, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali dropped a 43-page bombshell, lambasting the administration for refusing to spend funds Congress had legally appropriated.
Judge Ali didn’t mince words, stating, “Defendants’ reasons for not developing an argument here over the numerous months and opportunities given may be many.”
But let’s be real—when a judge suggests there’s no “plausible interpretation” of the law to justify withholding billions, it’s a polite way of saying the administration’s case is thinner than a soup kitchen’s broth.
Ali went on, declaring, “Defendants have given no justification to displace the bedrock expectation that Congress’s appropriations must be followed.”
This isn’t just a legal slap; it’s a reminder that even executive power has limits, something conservatives often cheer when it reins in overreaching progressive agendas. Yet, when it’s our side in the crosshairs, it stings just the same.
Fast forward two days to Friday, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit doubled down with a 2-1 decision. The court refused to block the lower ruling, ensuring the funds must be released as mandated.
The appeals panel, in a rather curt dismissal, noted, “Appellants have not satisfied the stringent requirements for a stay pending appeal.” Translation: nice try, but no cigar—Congress’s word stands, and the money must flow.
The panel wasn’t unanimous, though, with Judges Cornelia Pillard and Florence Pan—appointees of Obama and Biden, respectively—siding with the lower court, while Trump-appointed Judge Justin Walker dissented.
Some might cry “partisan judiciary,” but let’s not pretend judicial philosophy doesn’t play a role in both directions. The split here just underscores how deeply divided interpretations of executive power can be.
From a conservative lens, Trump’s push to cut foreign aid isn’t hard to understand. Many on the right question why billions are shipped overseas when domestic needs—like border security or infrastructure—go underfunded. It’s a fair point, even if the courts aren’t buying the legal pathway taken here.
Still, the administration’s “pocket rescission” tactic feels like a risky end-run around Congress, which even a GOP stalwart like Collins couldn’t stomach.
Her opposition signals that this isn’t just a left-right issue—it’s about who controls the purse strings, a principle conservatives usually defend tooth and nail.
Let’s not ignore the optics, either. When nearly $5 billion is on the line, the argument for fiscal restraint resonates with everyday Americans tired of seeing taxpayer dollars vanish into foreign bureaucracies. Yet, sidestepping Congress risks alienating even allies who might otherwise support the goal.
So where does this leave us? The courts have spoken, and for now, the funding stands—likely to the delight of those who prioritize international commitments over domestic priorities. But for conservatives, this ruling is a bitter pill, even if it’s wrapped in the language of constitutional checks.