Trump asks Supreme Court to block foreign aid payments

Trump's Justice Department asked the Supreme Court on Aug. 26, 2025, to halt a judge's order requiring $12 billion in foreign aid payments. Solicitor General John Sauer filed the emergency application seeking a stay before the Sep. 30 fiscal year deadline.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali ruled on Feb. 25, 2025, that Trump's blanket freeze violated federal law. He ordered the administration to release roughly $12 billion in congressionally approved aid before Sep. 30.

Ali found the freeze violated the 1974 Impoundment Control Act and the Administrative Procedure Act. The Act stops presidents from refusing to spend money Congress already appropriated.

Trump ordered a freeze and review of most foreign aid after taking office in Jan. 2025. His administration stopped billions in payments to contractors and nonprofits implementing health, development, and humanitarian programs abroad.

The Government Accountability Office has ruled the Impoundment Control Act doesn't permit withholding funds through their expiration date. GAO instructed that amounts proposed for rescission must be released before they lapse.

If the Supreme Court doesn't grant a stay, agencies must obligate about $12 billion by Sep. 30. Any funds not obligated by that deadline expire and revert to the Treasury, making them unavailable for the programs Congress funded.

The administration appealed to the 🏛️D.C. Circuit Court and sought emergency relief there first. After the D.C. Circuit denied full relief, the administration escalated to the Supreme Court on Aug. 26.

Foreign aid contractors and nonprofits sued to challenge the freeze and get payment for work they'd already completed. They argued the freeze violated existing contracts and harmed operations serving vulnerable populations abroad.

Trump's lawyers argue the President has constitutional authority over foreign policy and funding decisions. They say Congress must use a formal rescission process if it wants to force the executive branch to spend appropriated money.

The case tests the separation of powers between Congress's constitutional power of the purse and the President's foreign policy authority. Ali ruled that withholding the funds unilaterally violated the balance the Constitution requires.