Supreme Court Temporarily Allows Trump Governance to Withhold Foreign Aid
On September 9th, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay in a case concerning the Trump administration’s attempt to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid funding, pausing a lower court ruling while the Supreme Court considered next steps.This action follows a dispute over the president’s authority to control congressionally allocated funds.
The Trump administration had already informed lawmakers of its intention not to spend the $4 billion, appropriated by Congress for the fiscal year ending September 30th. While seeking to withhold this amount, the administration stated it would spend another $6.5 billion previously allocated by Congress.
The dispute centers on whether the president has the constitutional authority to unilaterally decide how congressionally approved funds are spent, a power traditionally held by Congress. The administration is attempting to utilize a process called “rescission,” notifying Congress of its intent not to spend the funds.
This move has sparked controversy,with critics pointing to the Impoundment Control Act of 1974,passed to regulate presidential control over the budget following similar actions by President Richard Nixon. The administration’s timing – notifying Congress so close to the fiscal year’s end – has been labeled a “pocket rescission,” a legally questionable tactic not employed in nearly 50 years.
U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had previously ruled on September 3rd that the administration must spend the funds unless Congress acted to withdraw them. Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued in a court filing that Ali’s ruling placed unacceptable restrictions on the president,including requiring diplomatic discussions with other countries regarding fund allocation.
The lawsuit challenging the rescission was initiated by groups led by the Global Health Council, who argue the administration’s legal interpretation would effectively reverse the intent of the Impoundment Control Act, granting the president expanded power to withhold funds and hindering legal challenges to such actions.
Adding to the complexity, Republicans control both chambers of Congress and are currently focused on funding the government for the next fiscal year, facing a potential government shutdown on October 1st if a funding agreement isn’t reached. This makes a Congressional response to the rescission unlikely, even if desired.
