A constitutional showdown erupted after the Supreme Court upheld Donald Trump’s use of a “pocket rescission” to freeze $4 billion in foreign aid. This rare tool lets the president cancel funds if Congress doesn’t act before the fiscal year ends. Trump’s move—called “the boldest assertion of executive spending power in decades”—revived the debate over whether presidents can refuse to spend money already approved by Congress.

The dispute stemmed from a lower court ruling that blocked Trump’s action, saying “only Congress could rescind appropriated funds.” But in a 6–3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed that, siding with Trump. The majority argued that limiting executive discretion “could harm the president’s ability to conduct international relations,” while dissenting justices warned it “undermines congressional authority and disrupts the balance of powers.”

Beyond foreign aid, the ruling has far-reaching consequences. By validating pocket rescissions, the Court reopened the path for future presidents to bypass Congress through timing tactics, effectively weakening its “power of the purse.”

Supporters claim the decision “restores rightful executive authority,” while critics fear it marks “a new phase of unchecked presidential dominance.” Many see it as the beginning of a constitutional shift toward stronger executive power and diminished legislative oversight.