On 4 September 2025, US District Judge Amir Ali in Washington issued a preliminary injunction requiring the Trump administration to release $11.5 billion in foreign aid that Congress had authorized, including funds President Trump said he would withhold via a late “pocket rescission”; the order will remain in effect until the end of the month while the case proceeds on appeal.
Key Takeaways
- Judge Amir Ali found the administration’s withholding of congressionally approved funds was likely unlawful and ordered release of $11.5 billion.
- The funds at issue include roughly $4 billion for USAID global health programs and more than $6 billion for HIV/AIDS initiatives.
- President Trump notified House Speaker Mike Johnson on 28 August that he would not spend $4.9 billion using a pocket rescission tactic.
- The court ruled that only Congress can enact a rescission that withholds appropriated funds; the president’s transmission alone is not sufficient.
- The administration filed a notice of appeal; the case may reach higher courts for a final ruling.
Verified Facts
Judge Amir Ali, a Biden nominee sitting in Washington, D.C., concluded on 4 September 2025 that the executive branch likely exceeded its authority by effectively canceling spending that Congress had approved. He issued a preliminary injunction ordering agencies to release the $11.5 billion while litigation continues. The injunction is temporary and set to expire at the end of the fiscal month unless extended by further court action.
The contested actions began when President Trump sent a late notice on 28 August to Congress indicating he would not obligate $4.9 billion that had been appropriated, a maneuver known as a pocket rescission. Under the rescissions process, Congress normally has a 45-day window to consider such a presidential proposal; submitting it very late in the fiscal year can prevent effective congressional action and leave the funds unspent.
The package of withheld funds includes nearly $4 billion designated for the US Agency for International Development (USAID) to support global health programs, and more than $6 billion earmarked for HIV and AIDS programs. In January, the administration issued an executive order directing the State Department and USAID to pause certain foreign-aid spending, citing mismatches with administration priorities.
A divided appeals-court panel previously allowed a suspension of the funds, but judges later revised that opinion and the matter returned to the district court. After Judge Ali’s injunction, the administration filed a notice of appeal, signaling that higher courts will likely resolve the dispute.
Context & Impact
The ruling touches on a broader separation-of-powers question: whether the president can unilaterally nullify or withhold congressionally appropriated funds without congressional approval. Judge Ali wrote that the statute is explicit that rescission of prior appropriations requires congressional action, not merely a presidential message.
If the injunction stands and funds are released, international health programs and HIV/AIDS services that depend on US funding could resume planning and payments that had been paused. Partner countries, NGOs and implementing partners have faced planning disruptions and uncertainty since the freeze.
Policy and legal consequences extend beyond the immediate programs: a court vindication of Congress’s exclusive rescission authority would constrain future executives from using late notices to achieve budgetary changes without legislative action. Conversely, appellate reversal would widen executive flexibility over appropriations.
Near-term practical effects
- Agencies would resume processing grants and contracts tied to the released funds, subject to administrative timelines.
- Some projects may still face delays because of interrupted procurement and staffing gaps caused by the earlier freeze.
“To be clear, no one disputes that defendants have significant discretion in how to spend the funds at issue… But defendants do not have any discretion as to whether to spend the funds.”
Judge Amir Ali, US District Court ruling
Unconfirmed
- Whether specific grant recipients will immediately receive payments if the injunction is implemented is subject to agency scheduling and administrative steps.
- How quickly USAID and the State Department will restart paused programs remains uncertain until agencies publish implementation guidance.
Bottom Line
Judge Ali’s injunction restores congressional control over the questioned appropriations for now and forces a legal review of the executive’s ability to unilaterally withhold funds. The administration’s appeal means the dispute will likely be resolved by higher courts, with significant implications for US budgeting authority and international aid programs.