Appeals Court Sides With Judge Ordering Trump to Release Billions in Frozen Foreign Aid

'There is not a plausible interpretation of the statutes that would justify the billions of dollars they plan to withhold,' wrote U.S. District Judge Amir Ali.

Jackson Richman

Published: 9/5/2025, 10:28:18 PM EDT

Appeals Court Sides With Judge Ordering Trump to Release Billions in Frozen Foreign Aid — President Donald Trump speaks to the media while signing executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House on Sept. 5, 2025. (Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit on Sept. 5 upheld a federal district judge's ruling that found the Trump administration could not withhold billions of dollars in foreign assistance approved by Congress.

The appeals court said the administration had not "satisfied the stringent requirements" to pause a ruling pending an appeal. The ruling was a split decision, with Circuit Judge Justin Walker dissenting.

U.S. District Judge Amir Ali had said in a Sept. 3 decision that the Trump administration must release $11.5 billion in foreign aid that is set to expire at the end of the month.

“There is not a plausible interpretation of the statutes that would justify the billions of dollars they plan to withhold,” Ali wrote in his ruling.

“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. But Defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.”

The Trump administration last week requested that Congress rescind $4.9 billion in foreign aid. The $11.5 billion figure includes the $4.9 billion.

In accordance with the Impoundment Control Act, a rescission is when the White House requests Congress to reverse government funding that has been appropriated by Congress. Typically, it must be approved within 45 days of the request being sent to Congress, or else the money must be spent.

Given that this request was made within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, the cancellation could take effect without Congress approving it. This maneuver is known as a pocket rescission.

Ali wrote that the funding is to be spent since Congress appropriated it.

"It is undisputed the relevant appropriations acts have been valid law from the time they were enacted to today. For almost all that period, Defendants did not even dispute that the laws were mandatory and required them to spend the funds," he wrote. "The President never asked Congress to rescind the funds at issue even though he successfully sought rescission of analogous funds in May 2025."

The Trump administration filed a notice of appeal on Sept. 4.

“President Trump has the executive authority to ensure that all foreign aid is accountable to taxpayers and aligns with the America First priorities people voted for,” White House spokesperson Anna Kelly said in a statement.

Republicans and Democrats have criticized the pocket rescission.

“With the Trump Administration’s attempt of the so-called 'pocket rescission,' it is clear that Republicans are prioritizing chaos over governing, partisanship over partnership, and their own power over the American people,” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a Sept. 2 letter.

“Republicans should not accept Russ Vought’s brazen attempt to usurp their own power,” Senate Appropriations Committee Vice Chair Patty Murray (D-Wash.) said in an Aug. 29 statement, referring to the director of the Office of Management and Budget.

“No president has a line item veto—and certainly not a retroactive line item veto."

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) called the pocket rescission "unlawful."

"Congress alone bears the constitutional responsibility for funding our government, and any effort to claw back resources outside of the appropriations process undermines that responsibility," she wrote on X.

T.J. Muscaro, The Associated Press, and Reuters contributed to this report.

From The Epoch Times