WASHINGTON (Chatnewstv.com) — The Trump administration on Monday asked the Supreme Court for an emergency order to keep nearly $5 billion in foreign aid frozen, escalating a legal fight over whether the president can block congressionally approved spending.
The request follows a ruling last week by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali, who said the freeze was likely unlawful. Ali ruled that Congress, not the president, must approve any rescission of funds.
“The law is explicit that it is congressional action — not the President’s transmission of a special message — that triggers rescission of the earlier appropriations,” he wrote.
President Donald Trump told House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., in an Aug. 28 letter that he would not spend $4.9 billion in foreign aid, using a little-known tactic known as a “pocket rescission.” The maneuver relies on submitting a rescission request too late in the fiscal year for Congress to respond, leaving the money unspent.
Solicitor General D. John Sauer urged the justices to intervene, calling Ali’s order “an unlawful injunction that precipitates an unnecessary emergency and needless interbranch conflict.”
But attorneys for the groups that sued the administration argued that the freeze itself violates federal law.
“This marks the third time in this case alone that the administration has run to the Supreme Court in a supposed emergency posture to seek relief from circumstances of its own making — this time to defend the illegal tactic of a ‘pocket rescission,’” said Lauren Bateman of Public Citizen Litigation Group, representing the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition and other plaintiffs.
The dispute underscores Trump’s long-running push to cut foreign aid, a policy critics say undermines humanitarian programs and U.S. influence abroad. Justice Department lawyers have said another $6.5 billion that was initially frozen will be released before the Sept. 30 fiscal year deadline.
Ali acknowledged that his ruling would not be the last word.
“This case raises questions of immense legal and practical importance, including whether there is any avenue to test the executive branch’s decision not to spend congressionally appropriated funds,” he wrote.
