In a high-stakes legal battle that could reshape U.S. foreign aid policy, President Donald Trump’s administration has asked the Supreme Court to approve its plan to withhold more than $4 billion in foreign assistance funding. The case pits the executive branch against both Congress and a coalition of nonprofits that depend on U.S. aid dollars, and it could have far-reaching implications for America’s role on the global stage.

Since his return to the White House, President Trump has renewed his push to cut billions in foreign aid that he argues does not serve U.S. interests. The funds in question include money already approved by Congress for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the State Department, international peacekeeping operations, and global democracy-promotion programs.

On August 28, Trump formally notified Congress that his administration would not spend the allocated money. He cited a rarely used budgetary maneuver under the Impoundment Control Act, known as a “pocket rescission.” This process allows the president to request that Congress cancel funds it has already approved. But because Trump issued the notice so late in the fiscal year, critics argue the move effectively blocks the money from being spent at all—without Congress having a real chance to respond.

The administration’s decision sparked immediate lawsuits from nonprofits, contractors, and international aid groups that depend on federal funding to carry out humanitarian projects worldwide. Plaintiffs argue that withholding congressionally approved funds violates federal law and undermines decades of bipartisan support for U.S. foreign aid.

A lower federal court sided with the challengers last week, ruling that the Trump administration had a legal obligation to distribute the money as allocated by Congress. Judge Amir Ali emphasized that the president could not unilaterally override Congress’s constitutional power of the purse.

When the administration appealed, a federal appeals court declined to freeze the ruling, forcing the White House to bring the case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

Solicitor General D. John Sauer, representing the Trump administration, argued in filings that the lower court’s injunction “raises a grave and urgent threat to the separation of powers.” He warned that forcing the executive branch to spend money against its objectives undermines the president’s ability to speak with one voice in foreign policy.

Supporters of Trump’s move say the president is simply exercising his constitutional authority to shape foreign policy and ensure taxpayer money is not wasted on programs that don’t align with U.S. priorities. Critics counter that allowing the executive branch to cancel congressionally approved funding would set a dangerous precedent, effectively granting the White House unilateral budgetary power.

This isn’t the first clash over foreign aid to reach the Supreme Court. In March, the justices narrowly ruled 5-4 against Trump’s attempt to freeze $2 billion in foreign aid while litigation continued.

Now, more than $4 billion in funding is at stake, with billions more potentially on the line. The Trump administration has already indicated it plans to move forward with spending another $6.5 billion in foreign aid appropriated earlier this year—funds it cannot claw back due to previous lawsuits.

Still, the outcome of this case could redefine how presidents use the Impoundment Control Act, a law enacted in 1974 after President Richard Nixon repeatedly attempted to block spending he opposed. Trump’s reliance on this rarely tested statute marks the first time in nearly half a century that a president has sought to use it to halt foreign assistance on such a massive scale.

The Supreme Court could issue a ruling at any time, and its decision will carry significant weight for both U.S. foreign policy and the constitutional balance of powers. If the justices side with Trump, future presidents may feel emboldened to unilaterally block or redirect federal spending. If they side with Congress, it will reaffirm the legislative branch’s exclusive authority over appropriations.

For aid groups, the stakes are urgent. The contested funds include support for humanitarian relief, global health initiatives, peacekeeping missions, and efforts to strengthen democratic institutions abroad. Without them, projects already underway could stall or collapse, impacting millions worldwide.

This legal showdown is more than just a budget fight. It raises fundamental questions about who controls America’s foreign policy—and whether U.S. commitments abroad can be trusted when subject to sudden reversals by the executive branch.

As the world watches, the Supreme Court’s ruling will not only determine the fate of billions in foreign aid but also shape the future of U.S. governance, the separation of powers, and America’s role as a global leader.

Your dream retirement isn’t going to fund itself—that’s what your portfolio is for.

When generating income for a comfortable retirement, there are countless options to weigh. Muni bonds, dividends, REITs, Master Limited Partnerships—each comes with risk and oppor-tunity.

The Definitive Guide to Retirement Income from Fisher investments shows you ways you can position your portfolio to help you maintain or improve your lifestyle in retirement.

It also highlights common mistakes, such as tax mistakes, that can make a substantial differ-ence as you plan your well-deserved future.

Download your free copy today.