Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory In Foreign Aid Fight1
The U.S. Supreme Court will allow the federal government to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid payments that President Trump tried to cancel last month using a rare “pocket rescission.”
The justices voted 6-3 to grant the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, which stopped a lower court’s order to release the funds that had already been set aside.
A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said, “This is a huge win for restoring the President’s power to carry out his policies. Left-wing groups can no longer take over the president’s agenda.”
Most of the justices agreed that “the harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.” The Post said that the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and Global Health Council are some of them.
The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t answer the bigger question of whether President Trump has the power to “impound” money that Congress has approved on his own.
Trump recently told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he was going to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid. This included $3.2 billion in programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations.
The request, called a “pocket rescission,” was sent to Congress so close to the end of the fiscal year on September 30 that it would automatically go into effect, no matter what Congress did.
It is the first time in almost fifty years that a president has done this.
The funding in question had been designated for nonprofit organizations currently suing the Trump administration, as well as for foreign governments.
A U.S. District Judge named Amit Mehta Ali, who was appointed by Biden, said earlier this month that the administration could not keep the money without Congress’s approval of the proposal to cancel it.
Ali wrote, “So far, Congress has not responded to the President’s proposal to rescind the funds.” “And the [Impoundment Control Act] makes it clear that it is congressional action, not the President sending a special message, that ends the previous appropriations.”
The nonprofit groups that are fighting the Trump administration’s funding freeze said that the pocket rescission broke federal law and put important, life-saving programs abroad at risk.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the majority ruling on Friday.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on Monday that will decide whether President Donald Trump can fire members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. This case could change the definition of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies.
The justices said in a short order that Trump could fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case is still going on. The stay that lets her go will stay in place until the court makes a decision, which is set for December.
The case asks if laws that protect FTC commissioners from being fired violate the separation of powers and if the court’s 1935 decision to uphold those protections should be changed. It will also look into whether lower federal courts can stop removals, like they did when Trump fired Democratic appointees.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who are on the left side of the high court, disagreed. Kagan wrote that the order effectively gives the president “full control” over independent agencies that Congress wanted to keep out of politics.
“He can now fire any member he wants, for any reason or no reason at all,” says the majority, even though Congress said otherwise. She wrote, “And he may do this to end the agencies’ independence and bipartisanship.”
A MOTHER FOUND… A FAMILY SHATTERED: The Tragic Death of Nancy Guthrie and the Shocking Arrest That Revealed a Betrayal No One Saw ComingQ
The story of Nancy Guthrie began as a mystery that captured attention and concern.
At 84 years old, she was known as a quiet, deeply loved figure whose disappearance sent shockwaves through both her community and those who followed the case closely.
In the early days, the narrative seemed tragically familiar—a possible kidnapping.
Authorities searched tirelessly, neighbors spoke in hushed tones, and hope remained fragile but alive.
For her daughter, Savannah Guthrie, the uncertainty was perhaps the hardest part.
Waiting without answers can be more painful than facing the truth itself.
But as the investigation unfolded, subtle shifts began to emerge.
What once appeared to be an external threat slowly revealed signs of something closer to home.
Investigators, working methodically, began to piece together details that did not align with the initial assumptions. Timelines were reexamined.
Statements were revisited. And slowly, a different picture began to form.
When authorities confirmed that Nancy Guthrie had been found deceased, the emotional weight of the case deepened instantly.
It was no longer a search—it was a loss.Then came the revelation that stunned everyone.
Tommaso Cioni, her stepfather, was arrested in connection with her death.
The news transformed the case overnight.
What had been viewed as a possible crime by an unknown perpetrator was now understood as something far more personal—a betrayal rooted within the family itself.
According to early reports, investigators are exploring motives tied to financial disputes and issues surrounding inheritance.
While details remain under investigation, the idea that greed and conflict could lead to such a tragic outcome has left many struggling to process what happened.
Because beyond the legal implications lies something deeper.
This is not just a case about crime. It is a story about trust—broken in the most profound way.
Families are often seen as places of safety, of unconditional support, of shared history.
To imagine harm coming from within that circle challenges something fundamental in how people understand relationships.
For those close to Nancy Guthrie, the grief is layered.
There is the pain of losing someone they loved.
There is the shock of how it happened.And there is the haunting question of whether anything could have been done differently.
For Savannah Guthrie, the tragedy is deeply personal.
Known for her composure and professionalism, she now faces a reality no public role can prepare someone for—the loss of a parent under circumstances that are both devastating and complex.
Public reaction has been immediate and emotional.
Messages of support have poured in, reflecting a shared sense of sorrow and disbelief.
Many have expressed sympathy not only for the loss itself, but for the painful way in which the truth emerged.
At the same time, the case has sparked broader conversations.
About the pressures that can exist within families.
About the role of financial conflict in shaping relationships.
And about the importance of addressing tensions before they escalate into something irreversible.
As the legal process begins, there will be many questions still to answer.
What exactly happened in the final moments?
What evidence led investigators to their conclusions?
And how will justice be pursued in a case that has already left such deep emotional scars?
These answers will come in time.
But for now, what remains is the human story at the center of it all.
