In a significant victory for the Trump administration, Chief Justice John Roberts issued a temporary stay that halted a court order mandating the government administration to spend $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, set to expire by September 30, 2025.
For context, Trump cleverly decided to use a $4 billion “pocket rescission” maneuver to bypass Congress and cut the bloated federal budget. These funds were distributed through USAID and other controversial groups, and although initially, a lower court had ruled the funding freeze illegal, an appeals court lifted the block, allowing the cuts to resume. As of the time of writing this article, aid groups have a few days left to respond to the recent decision, and the Supreme Court is set to issue a further ruling on this issue.
Before being overruled, U.S. District Judge Amir Ali made the absurd allegation that the Trump administration was unable to spend less money than was allocated in the budget. The Obama-appointed judge wrote, “To be clear, no one disputes that defendants have significant discretion in how to spend the funds at issue, and the court is not directing defendants to make payments to any particular recipients.”
Continuing his absurd argument, Judge Ali said, “But defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.” He claimed that 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.”
Concluding his comments, the biased judge noted, “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.”
In any case, the Office of Management and Budget took to social media to announce Trump’s strategic agenda. The OMB posted, “Last night, President Trump CANCELED $4.9 billion in America Last foreign aid using a pocket rescission.”
However, some RINOs, such as Sen Susan Collins (R-ME), opposed the decision. She whined, “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law. Instead of this attempt to undermine the law, the appropriate way is to identify ways to reduce excessive spending through the bipartisan, annual appropriations process. Congress approves rescissions regularly as part of this process.”
"*" indicates required fields
Similarly, far left Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) opposed the move. Schumer described how the “unlawful ‘pocket rescission’ package is further proof President Trump and Congressional Republicans are hell-bent on rejecting bipartisanship and ‘going it alone’ this fall.”
Still not done, the controversial senator whined, “As the country stares down next month’s government funding deadline on September 30th, it is clear neither President Trump nor Congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown.” Building on this point, he alleged, “In fact, it seems Republicans are eager to inflict further pain on the American people, raising their health care costs, compromising essential services and further damaging our national security.”