Supreme Court Lets Trump Keep Partial Aid Freeze for Now (1)

US Chief Justice John Roberts will allow the Trump administration to resume a partial freeze on foreign assistance funding for now, a move that opponents say heightens the risk that at least some of the billions of dollars at stake will expire at the end of the month.

The temporary order from the Supreme Court means that US officials can avoid taking steps to spend approximately $4 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress that President Donald Trump is seeking to claw back. That money is set to expire after the fiscal year ends Sept. 30 if the State Department and what’s left of the US Agency for International Development don’t commit to spending it, a process known as obligating.

The latest Supreme Court order will be in effect until Roberts or the full court decide whether to let Trump maintain the freeze for longer while the underlying dispute continues over whether the executive branch can refuse to spend money appropriated by Congress. Roberts set a deadline for the nonprofits and businesses that sued to file a brief by Sept. 12.

Read More: Trump Asks Supreme Court to Keep Freeze on Expiring Foreign Aid

The legal fight over Trump’s move to cut off an estimated $30 billion in foreign aid has recently narrowed to focus on more than $10 billion set to expire this month. The Justice Department said in its court filings that the administration will meet the deadline for $6.5 billion, but argues Trump should be free to pursue his policies to block the remaining amount.

The Justice Department is challenging a Washington federal judge’s ruling that the administration acted unlawfully when it refused to fully carry out Congress’ 2024 spending legislation.

Trump recently formally asked Congress to pull back, or rescind, more than $4 billion in foreign aid, including much of the money at issue in the court fight. It’s widely seen as a test of a novel strategy to run out the clock on the fiscal year and cut the funds if lawmakers don’t act on his requests by the end of the month, a tactic known as a “pocket rescission.”

In its Supreme Court request, US Solicitor General D. John Sauer argued that the lower courts shouldn’t be allowed to interfere in the political process and that the injunction would force US officials to rush into negotiations and “undermine US foreign policy interests.” The challengers have countered that the administration is free to press its requests with Congress, and that any time-crunch is the government’s fault since they’d been under court order for months to obligate the money.

The case is State v. AIDS Vaccine Advocacy, 25A269, US Supreme Court.

(Updated with background.)

To contact the reporter on this story:
Zoe Tillman in Washington at ztillman2@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story:
Elizabeth Wasserman at ewasserman2@bloomberg.net

Anthony Aarons

© 2025 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission.