A major setback hit former President Donald Trump’s administration on Friday after a US appeals court declined to block a ruling that stops him from unilaterally cutting billions of dollars in foreign aid.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sided with a lower court decision that ordered the administration to quickly release roughly $11 billion in aid projects already authorized by Congress. The funds must be spent before they expire in September.
Court Pushes Back on Trump
The appeals court gave no lengthy explanation, only stating that the Trump administration had not met the “stringent requirements” to pause the lower court’s ruling.
One dissent came from Judge Justin Walker, a Trump appointee, who said he would have allowed the pause.
Billions at Stake
The legal battle began after aid groups—expecting to compete for funding this year—sued the administration for holding back money.
Trump’s team said it would release $6.5 billion but attempted to withhold another $4 billion, most of it earmarked for the US Agency for International Development (USAID)—an institution the administration had sought to dismantle.
District Judge Amir Ali ruled earlier this week that the White House cannot simply decide not to spend money that Congress has already approved. “The administration remains under a duty to comply with appropriations laws unless Congress changes them,” he said.
A Battle Over Power
At the heart of the case is a question of authority: Can the President bypass Congress to cancel foreign aid funding?
Trump’s budget director Russell Vought argued yes, pointing to a rarely used tool called a “pocket rescission.” The tactic allows presidents to withhold funds for 45 days after requesting cuts—long enough to run out the clock until the fiscal year ends on September 30.
The White House noted the maneuver was last used in 1977.
But Judge Ali rejected the argument, ruling that simply asking Congress to rescind the funds is not enough. Unless lawmakers explicitly agree, the aid money must be released.
What the Money Was For
The disputed $4 billion was intended for foreign aid programs, United Nations peacekeeping operations, and democracy-promotion efforts overseas.
Ali explained that he moved quickly so higher courts could weigh in before the funds expire.
This isn’t the first time the case has reached higher levels. The US Supreme Court, with its 6-3 conservative majority, has already stepped in once—forcing the Trump administration to pay aid groups for work they had already performed.
What’s Next?
If the ruling stands, it means Trump—and any future president—cannot sidestep Congress to block spending on foreign aid.
For aid organizations and global partners, it could mean billions in promised funds finally being delivered. For Trump, it’s another clash with the courts over the limits of presidential power.
