A constitutional clash has erupted after the Supreme Court upheld former President Donald Trump’s use of a “pocket rescission” to freeze $4 billion in foreign aid. The rarely invoked 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 declared only Congress could rescind appropriations. The verdict marks a significant expansion of executive power and reignites debate over the limits of presidential authority.

The majority opinion argued that restricting the president’s discretion could hinder foreign policy and the nation’s ability to respond swiftly to global events. They maintained that flexibility in spending decisions is essential for maintaining diplomatic and security interests.

Dissenting justices, however, warned that the ruling undermines Congress’s constitutional control over federal spending. They cautioned that it weakens the system of checks and balances designed to prevent the executive from acting unilaterally on fiscal matters.

At the heart of the controversy is the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which was passed after President Nixon’s attempts to withhold funds approved by Congress. The Court’s decision challenges that law, potentially reopening the door to executive impoundment powers long thought settled.

Supporters of the ruling celebrated it as a restoration of presidential strength in matters of national interest. They argue that presidents need discretion to manage unforeseen crises and ensure taxpayer money is used effectively.

Critics, however, fear it sets a dangerous precedent. By allowing the White House to freeze congressionally approved funds, they say, the Court has tipped the balance of power toward an increasingly dominant executive branch.

As legal scholars and lawmakers react, the decision may reshape the long-standing tug-of-war between Congress and the presidency — redefining who ultimately controls the nation’s purse strings.