The Trump administration has turned to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking an emergency intervention to halt a lower court ruling that would force the government to spend nearly $12 billion in foreign aid before the end of the fiscal year. The emergency appeal, filed late Tuesday, reflects President Trump’s long-standing effort to curb what he has consistently called “waste, fraud, and abuse” in foreign assistance programs.

At the heart of the dispute is funding allocated to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which Congress approved before Trump took office for his second term. These funds, which must be disbursed by September 30, have been in limbo for months. President Trump issued an executive order on his first day back in office in January to suspend nearly all foreign aid expenditures, as part of a broader campaign to refocus American resources on domestic priorities. This action has sparked ongoing legal wrangling between the administration and progressive-leaning aid organizations that benefit from the billions in grants.

In his emergency filing with the high court, U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer warned that without immediate intervention, the administration would be forced to “rapidly obligate some $12 billion in foreign-aid funds” by the looming fiscal deadline. The Trump team argues that this rush to spend taxpayer dollars—much of it destined for countries with questionable records on transparency and accountability—undermines both executive authority and fiscal responsibility.

Earlier this year, Trump’s executive order was blocked by U.S. District Judge Amir Ali in Washington, D.C., who ruled that the administration must resume payments for the USAID programs previously greenlit by Congress. However, that ruling did not stand for long. In a significant legal victory for the administration, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit overturned Judge Ali’s injunction in a 2-1 decision this month.

The appellate panel determined that the plaintiffs—foreign aid groups—lacked the legal standing to sue the executive branch over what is known as impoundment (the withholding of allocated funds). Writing for the majority, Judge Karen L. Henderson, a respected appointee of President George H.W. Bush, emphasized that the president’s discretion in managing foreign aid disbursement remains intact, particularly when plaintiffs cannot demonstrate a clear legal pathway to challenge such decisions.

Still, the appeals court has yet to issue a formal mandate to implement its ruling, meaning Judge Ali’s order technically remains in effect for now—prompting the Trump administration to seek swift relief from the nation’s highest court.

Sauer’s Supreme Court filing insists that disputes over the disbursement of funds so close to their expiration fall under the political purview of the legislative and executive branches—not the judiciary. “Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits,” Sauer argued, pointing to the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) as the controlling authority.

Aid organizations and other progressive plaintiffs have countered by asserting that the ICA, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act, forbids the executive from unilaterally withholding funds once appropriated. Yet legal experts note that Congress itself retains tools—such as rescissions or legislative oversight—to address such disputes, rather than relying on activist judges or unelected bureaucrats to dictate foreign policy from the bench.

The Supreme Court has previously been involved in similar foreign aid debates, having ruled narrowly (5-4) on related executive power questions in recent years. The current appeal marks the second time in six months that the high court has been asked to weigh in on Trump’s effort to rein in foreign aid.