- calendar_today August 24, 2025
.
Tuesday night, the Trump administration filed an emergency application with the U.S. Supreme Court, asking the justices to let it freeze billions of dollars in foreign aid spending that had been previously authorized by Congress.
The high court filing would return the battle over U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) spending to the top of the court’s docket for the second time in six months.
On the line is nearly $12 billion in foreign aid set aside by Congress for USAID and the funds’ corresponding payment schedule. The money is scheduled to be spent by September 30, which is when the current fiscal year ends. After President Donald Trump returned to office in January, his first official act was an executive order telling the federal government to “suspend” the majority of foreign aid spending.
The president has since explained his actions as part of an effort to root out “waste, fraud, and abuse” of money spent overseas. He took particular aim at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), whose foreign assistance programs rely on annual congressional appropriations.
Judge Amir Ali of the U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., rebuffed Trump’s freeze of foreign aid in a ruling this February. Ali ruled in the plaintiffs’ favor by saying the White House “must continue the flow of funds” for USAID programs that Congress had already agreed to spend. Ali ordered the Trump administration to begin the payments on billions of dollars in USAID grants as soon as possible.
A challenge to the executive order at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit moved to an accelerated schedule this summer. The appeals court has had a high turnover in judges and is operating with a reduced bench of judges. Last week, a panel of three judges at the D.C. Circuit heard oral arguments on Trump’s freeze of foreign aid spending.
The D.C. Circuit ruled 2-1 on Friday to reverse Judge Ali’s injunction. Judge Karen L. Henderson, a Bush-41 appointee, wrote the opinion for the majority.
According to Henderson’s 18-page decision, the plaintiffs in the case (foreign aid organizations who want their USAID grant payments to resume) do not have a right to sue the Trump administration. Henderson wrote that the foreign aid groups could not successfully advance a “cause of action” under what’s known as the doctrine of impoundment.
The legal finding is a major victory for the Trump administration. But the D.C. Circuit has not yet issued a formal mandate to the Trump administration to lift the payments injunction — due to the court’s schedule. Because of that, Ali’s ruling remains in effect, at least for the time being.
The result is that the Trump administration is now on a short clock to avoid being ordered to disburse the $12 billion before the fiscal year closes on September 30.
Win for Trump, But a Clock Is Ticking
In his Tuesday night filing with the Supreme Court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer asked the justices to issue an emergency stay that would essentially keep the lower court’s injunction in place. In its current form, the Trump administration would be on pace to have to “rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds” by the September 30 deadline, according to the filing.
“The interplay between different congressional enactments addressing the withdrawal of funds from an agency account is a complex legal question well suited for de novo review in the appellate courts, but not for effective prejudgment by the district court,” Sauer wrote in the filing.
In addition, Sauer’s filing argues that “Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits.”
The plaintiffs in the case — a coalition of foreign aid groups whose projects depend on USAID funding — have a contrary view of what the Constitution and federal statutes allow.
Their central argument is that the president has no unilateral authority to block funds that Congress already put in the federal budget for overseas spending. The plaintiffs point to the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) of 1974 and the Administrative Procedure Act as the principal legal authorities that support their claim.
A decision by the Supreme Court could have major implications for the balance of power in Washington. A win for the Trump administration would provide more legal clarity to a president’s ability to reject or delay congressionally approved spending as he or she sees fit. A loss would provide more limits on a president’s ability to manage the federal budget.
The Supreme Court is already familiar with the controversy, having already issued a 5-4 ruling in favor of Trump earlier this year. The justices are expected to act soon, which means a decision could be announced before the current fiscal year comes to a close.
