The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday delivered a significant victory to the Trump administration, granting an emergency application for a stay that effectively allows the president to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid appropriated by Congress.
In an unsigned order issued September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed a lower court injunction that would have required the administration to obligate the foreign aid funding before the fiscal year expires on September 30. The majority found that the government had made a “sufficient showing” under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 that the nonprofit organizations challenging the funding freeze lacked standing to bring their lawsuit under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The court emphasized that “this order should not be read as a final determination on the merits” and represents only a “preliminary view, consistent with the standards for interim relief”. However, the practical effect of the ruling means the $4 billion will never reach its intended recipients because the appropriations will expire at the end of the fiscal year.
The legal battle began when President Trump froze over $30 billion in foreign assistance funding on his first day in office through Executive Order No. 14169, pending a comprehensive review of all foreign aid programs. While the administration has since resumed some funding, it formally requested Congress rescind $4 billion through a “special message” under the Impoundment Control Act on August 28, 2025.
Nonprofit organizations including the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Global Health Council, and the American Bar Association filed lawsuits challenging the funding freeze as an unlawful impoundment that violated both federal appropriations law and the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Amir Ali initially granted a preliminary injunction on September 3, 2025, ordering the executive branch to obligate approximately $10.5 billion in foreign aid funding.
The Trump administration argued that the Impoundment Control Act precludes private organizations from suing to enforce spending laws, claiming such lawsuits would “supplant interbranch negotiations” and “leapfrog the Comptroller General,” who has statutory authority to challenge impoundments. The administration also contended that forcing compliance would require it to “advocate against its own objectives” in foreign policy negotiations.
Legal experts have characterized the administration’s strategy as a “pocket rescission” – using the 45-day congressional review period to run out the clock on fiscal year appropriations. Since Republican lawmakers have shown no interest in acting on the rescission request, the funds will simply expire when the fiscal year ends.
Justice Elena Kagan authored a nine-page dissent joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, sharply criticizing the majority for intervening in such a consequential case through the emergency docket. Kagan argued that the case was “not a likely candidate for a grant of emergency relief” given its constitutional significance and the court’s limited briefing and deliberation time.
The dissent emphasized that the Impoundment Control Act contains an explicit “Disclaimer” provision stating that “nothing contained in this Act…shall be construed” as “affecting in any way the claims or defenses of any party to litigation concerning any impoundment.” Kagan argued this language clearly preserves the right of affected parties to challenge impoundments in court.
