The U.S. Supreme Court just handed Donald Trump a major win in his push to keep America’s treasure chest locked tight.
On Friday, the court ruled in favor of the administration, allowing the withholding of roughly $4 billion in foreign aid that Congress had earmarked for the current fiscal year. It’s a decision that’s got the “America First” crowd cheering and the international aid enthusiasts wringing their hands.
Newsmax reported that this ruling essentially greenlights Trump’s plan to redirect focus inward, blocking a lower court mandate to release the funds while raising hefty questions about presidential power versus congressional authority.
Let’s rewind to the start of this legal tussle. Back on September 3, 2025, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington ordered the administration to spend the aid, arguing that the executive must follow appropriations laws unless Congress says otherwise. But Trump’s team wasn’t having it, pushing back with an appeal.
Just two days later, on September 5, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, in a tight 2-1 decision, refused to pause Judge Ali’s order.
Undeterred, the administration took its case to the Supreme Court, which, on September 9, 2025, temporarily halted the lower court’s ruling while deliberating. It’s no surprise that a court with a 6-3 conservative tilt ultimately sided with Trump.
The Supreme Court’s unsigned order didn’t mince words, suggesting that the aid groups who brought the lawsuit likely lacked the standing to even challenge the withholding.
And let’s be honest—why should unelected activists get to dictate how taxpayer dollars are spent on foreign soil? The court also noted that blocking Trump here could hamstring his ability to steer foreign policy, a power many conservatives believe should rest firmly with the president.
Now, this $4 billion was no small potatoes—it was meant for foreign aid, U.N. peacekeeping missions, and overseas democracy programs, all of which Congress approved last year.
Trump’s administration, however, labeled these funds as “contrary to U.S. foreign policy,” a clear nod to the “America First” mantra. While some might call it heartless, others see it as a long-overdue recalibration of priorities.
Speaking of Congress, let’s not forget they hold the purse strings under the U.S. Constitution. Yet Trump’s team attempted what’s called a “pocket rescission,” a rare maneuver to sidestep spending the appropriated funds, last pulled off way back in 1977. Legal experts are scratching their heads, noting this kind of massive fund clawback lacks any real historical precedent.
The administration’s argument? They claim it’s “self-defeating and senseless” to spend money they’re actively asking Congress to rescind. It’s a bold stance, but when billions are on the line with a fiscal year deadline of September 30, 2025, playing hardball might just be the name of the game.
Budget Director Russell Vought doubled down, pointing out the president can legally hold funds for 45 days after requesting a rescission, potentially running out the clock until the fiscal year ends. With about $11 billion in aid set to expire by that date, the stakes couldn’t be higher.
Not everyone on the bench was waving the Trump flag, though. The court’s three liberal justices dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan arguing that the Constitution “gives Congress the power to make spending decisions” through appropriations laws.
It’s a fair point, but in a world where foreign policy often demands quick action, should Congress really micromanage every dollar? Justice Kagan, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, didn’t stop there.
“If those laws require obligation of the money, and if Congress has not by rescission or other action relieved the Executive of that duty, then the Executive must comply,” she wrote. Noble sentiment, but tying a president’s hands mid-negotiation with global players seems like a recipe for weakness.
Meanwhile, aid groups who sued over this are left in the lurch, and Trump’s broader moves—like plans to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development—signal a seismic shift in how America engages abroad. It’s a bitter pill for those who believe in spreading democracy with dollars, but for many, it’s high time the U.S. stopped playing global ATM.
Interestingly, this isn’t the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on Trump’s aid policies this year. Back in March 2025, a narrower 5-4 vote refused to let the administration withhold $2 billion for work already done by aid organizations. That loss makes this latest victory all the sweeter for the “America First” camp.