The Supreme Court just handed President Trump another huge victory on foreign aid. In a 6-3 decision, SCOTUS ruled that President Trump can go ahead with cancelling a whopping $4 billion in foreign aid that was already approved by Congress. Check it out: BREAKING The Supreme Court just gave Trump another MASSIVE Win. They are allowing Trump to cancel $4 BILLION in Foreign Aid THE MAGA KING KEEPS WINNING KEEP CUTTING pic.twitter.com/TaQlJCqLgQ — MAGA Voice (@MAGAVoice) September 26, 2025 The Supreme Court’s ruling overturned a prior decision by Biden-appointed U.S. District Judge Amir Ali who blocked the cuts and ordered the Trump administration to restore funding. BREAKING: The Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, allowing it to block $4 billion in Congress-approved foreign aid spending. “A federal judge had previously ruled that the administration would have to spend the funds by the end of the month, but the Supreme… pic.twitter.com/zrVGrYM3lE — Benny Johnson (@bennyjohnson) September 26, 2025 BREAKING: The Supreme Court sides with the Trump administration, allowing it to block $4 billion in Congress-approved foreign aid spending. “A federal judge had previously ruled that the administration would have to spend the funds by the end of the month, but the Supreme Court’s decision puts that on hold.” Last month, President Trump used a rarely-used process known as a “pocket rescission” in order to legally pull back the foreign aid funds. Essentially, he waited until near the end of the fiscal year, which ends on September 30th, to notify Congress that he was cutting the funds. This gives Congress little time to act before the funds expire. A lower court had ruled that this maneuver was illegal, but SCOTUS just overturned that ruling. Fox News explained further: The U.S. Supreme Court on Friday extended an earlier order that allows the Trump administration to continue blocking nearly $5 billion in congressionally appropriated foreign funds. The U.S. Department of Justice had reached out to the high court for an emergency appeal after a district court judge ruled the administration’s decision to hold the aid was likely illegal, adding that Congress would need to approve the withholding of funds. “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,” District Judge Amir Ali said at the time. Friday’s ruling was 6 to 3, with the three liberal justices dissenting. President Donald Trump last month sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, explaining he was using a pocket rescission, which allows a president to submit a request to Congress to hold approved funds near the end of the fiscal year. Under federal law, Congress has to approve the rescission within 45 days or the money must be spent. But the budget year will end before the 45-day window closes, and, in this situation, the White House is asserting that congressional inaction allows it not to spend the money. It was the first use of a pocket rescission in 50 years. Of course, the three liberal justices dissented. NBC News has more: The three liberals on the court dissented, with Justice Elena Kagan writing that the legal issue in the case has not been presented before, meaning the court was working in “uncharted territory.” Yet again, the majority nevertheless granted the emergency request made by the government without hearing oral arguments or issuing a fully reasoned decision, she added. “We therefore should have denied this application, allowed the lower courts to go forward, and ensured that the weighty question presented here receives the consideration it deserves,” Kagan wrote. Chief Justice John Roberts had on Sept. 9 issued a temporary stay that put the lower court ruling on hold while the Supreme Court decided what next steps to take. The Trump administration, which has aggressively sought to exert its power over Congress in recent months, has notified lawmakers of its intention not to spend the funds. This action has sparked a debate over whether the president has such authority, as under the Constitution, it is the role of Congress to allocate money for the president to spend.