Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory In Foreign Aid Fight

The U.S. Supreme Court will allow the federal government to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid payments that President Trump tried to cancel last month using a rare “pocket rescission.”

The justices voted 6-3 to grant the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, which stopped a lower court’s order to release the funds that had already been set aside.

A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said, “This is a huge win for restoring the President’s power to carry out his policies. Left-wing groups can no longer take over the president’s agenda.”

Most of the justices agreed that “the harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.” The Post said that the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and Global Health Council are some of them.

The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t answer the bigger question of whether President Trump has the power to “impound” money that Congress has approved on his own.

Trump recently told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he was going to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid. This included $3.2 billion in programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations.

The request, called a “pocket rescission,” was sent to Congress so close to the end of the fiscal year on September 30 that it would automatically go into effect, no matter what Congress did.

It is the first time in almost fifty years that a president has done this.

The funding in question had been designated for nonprofit organizations currently suing the Trump administration, as well as for foreign governments.

A U.S. District Judge named Amit Mehta Ali, who was appointed by Biden, said earlier this month that the administration could not keep the money without Congress’s approval of the proposal to cancel it.

Ali wrote, “So far, Congress has not responded to the President’s proposal to rescind the funds.” “And the [Impoundment Control Act] makes it clear that it is congressional action, not the President sending a special message, that ends the previous appropriations.”

The nonprofit groups that are fighting the Trump administration’s funding freeze said that the pocket rescission broke federal law and put important, life-saving programs abroad at risk.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the majority ruling on Friday.

Earlier this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on Monday that will decide whether President Donald Trump can fire members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. This case could change the definition of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies.

The justices said in a short order that Trump could fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case is still going on. The stay that lets her go will stay in place until the court makes a decision, which is set for December.

The case asks if laws that protect FTC commissioners from being fired violate the separation of powers and if the court’s 1935 decision to uphold those protections should be changed. It will also look into whether lower federal courts can stop removals, like they did when Trump fired Democratic appointees.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who are on the left side of the high court, disagreed. Kagan wrote that the order effectively gives the president “full control” over independent agencies that Congress wanted to keep out of politics.

“He can now fire any member he wants, for any reason or no reason at all,” says the majority, even though Congress said otherwise. She wrote, “And he may do this to end the agencies’ independence and bipartisanship.”