Washington, United States – The Trump administration has asked the Supreme Court to intervene in a dispute over billions of dollars in foreign aid funding.
The administration wants to cut off approximately $4 billion in congressionally approved funds, despite a lower court ruling that deemed the decision likely illegal.
US District Judge Amir Ali ruled last week that the administration cannot unilaterally withhold the funding, which is allocated for foreign aid, United Nations peacekeeping operations, and democracy-promotion efforts overseas.
The administration argues that the funding is “contrary to US foreign policy” and that it has the authority to review and cancel federal spending.
The dispute centers on a “pocket rescission,” an unusual step that bypasses Congress. Trump budget director Russell Vought has argued that the president can withhold funds for 45 days after requesting a rescission, which would run out the clock until the end of the fiscal year. The White House said this tactic was last used in 1977.
Lauren Bateman, a lawyer for a group of plaintiffs, criticized the administration’s move, saying, “the administration is effectively asking the Supreme Court to bless its attempt to unlawfully accumulate power.”
The plaintiffs argue that the administration’s actions violate federal law and the Constitution’s separation of powers.
The Supreme Court’s decision on this matter could have significant implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.
The court’s recent trend of issuing decisions in Trump’s favor through emergency rulings has raised questions about transparency and the rule of law.
In recent months, the Supreme Court has issued a number of decisions in Trump’s favor, with the court siding with Trump in 16 out of 22 emergency ruling cases as of August. This has led to criticism from legal scholars and federal judges, who argue that the court’s unsigned orders often lack clear legal reasoning.
If the Supreme Court allows the Trump administration to cut off the foreign aid funding, it could have far-reaching consequences for US foreign policy and global humanitarian efforts.
The funding supports critical programs and projects worldwide, including those focused on healthcare, education, and clean water.
On the other hand, if the court rules against the administration, it could limit the president’s authority to unilaterally cancel federal spending and reinforce the role of Congress in setting the federal budget.
The outcome of this case will likely have significant implications for the future of US foreign policy and the balance of power in Washington.
