A constitutional clash erupted after the Supreme Court upheld former President Donald Trump’s use of a “pocket rescission” to freeze $4 billion in foreign aid. This rarely used mechanism allows a president to cancel funds if Congress fails to act before the fiscal year ends.

In a 6–3 decision, the Court overturned a lower ruling that had said only Congress could rescind appropriations, marking a major expansion of executive power and reigniting debate over presidential authority. The majority argued that restricting the president’s discretion could hinder foreign policy and the nation’s ability to respond swiftly to global events. Flexibility in spending decisions, they said, is essential to maintaining diplomatic and security interests.

Dissenting justices warned the ruling undermines Congress’s constitutional control over federal spending, weakening the system of checks and balances meant to prevent unilateral executive action. At the center of the debate is the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, passed after President Nixon’s attempts to withhold funds approved by Congress. The Court’s decision challenges that law, potentially reopening executive impoundment powers long considered settled.

Supporters celebrated the ruling as a restoration of presidential strength, arguing that discretion is necessary to manage crises and ensure taxpayer money is used effectively. Critics, however, fear it sets a dangerous precedent, allowing the White House to freeze congressionally approved funds and tipping the balance of power toward the executive branch.

As legal scholars and lawmakers weigh the implications, the decision may reshape the long-standing tug-of-war between Congress and the presidency, redefining who ultimately controls the nation’s purse strings and sparking fresh debate over the limits of executive authority.