Supreme Court Allows Trump to Slash Foreign Aid

[Maximum Overkill 2,326]

The Supreme Court on Friday allowed the Trump administration to withhold $4 billion in foreign aid that had been appropriated by Congress, in a preliminary test of President Trump’s efforts to wrest the power of the purse from lawmakers.

In its brief order, the court’s conservative majority allowed the president to cut the funding in part because it said his flexibility to engage in foreign affairs outweighed “the potential harm” faced by aid recipients. The justices cautioned that their decision, a temporary one while litigation continues, “should not be read as a final determination on the merits.”

[seafoam1 3,330]

This is great news. 

[jerryskids 6,998]

Seems like an interesting situation.  Congress controls spending, but the Executive controls foreign affairs.  If the President determines that spending is not in the interest of the US (say, to fund UNRWA which supports Hamas terrorism), should he be able to stop such spending?  I'm leaning yes.

[Fnord 2,450]

1 hour ago, jerryskids said:

Seems like an interesting situation.  Congress controls spending, but the Executive controls foreign affairs.  If the President determines that spending is not in the interest of the US (say, to fund UNRWA which supports Hamas terrorism), should he be able to stop such spending?  I'm leaning yes.

A better question to ask yourself is whether you'd feel the same about a Democratic president withholding spending a Republican Congress had authorized. Don't cherry pick programs you already hate.

[easilyscan 988]

6 hours ago, Fnord said:

A better question to ask yourself is whether you'd feel the same about a Democratic president withholding spending a Republican Congress had authorized. Don't cherry pick programs you already hate.

Another question could be, why is an entity that's already $37 trillion in debt, providing foreign aid to anyone ?

[seafoam1 3,330]

Liberals are like financially irresponsible broke women with a handful of credit cards

[jonnyutah 508]

8 hours ago, Fnord said:

A better question to ask yourself is whether you'd feel the same about a Democratic president withholding spending a Republican Congress had authorized. Don't cherry pick programs you already hate.

Lol. 

[Mike Honcho 5,385]

On 9/27/2025 at 9:51 AM, jerryskids said:

Seems like an interesting situation.  Congress controls spending, but the Executive controls foreign affairs.  If the President determines that spending is not in the interest of the US (say, to fund UNRWA which supports Hamas terrorism), should he be able to stop such spending?  I'm leaning yes.

The Constitution does not give the President control over foreign affairs, it says Executive can negotiate treaties and appoint ambassadors. Congress with it's power of purse, said this money is to be spent on this and it's up to the Executive to do it.  What happened here is amounts to a line item veto which SCOTUS has rejected.  Not only that, but it's ridiculous that the court ordered a stay on this, that the Executive would suffer more harm than those that depend on the money. Just another example of how this court has become an extension of this administration. And they did it without hearing an argument, this is a major rewriting of the law and they are doing it without a hearing.  

[seafoam1 3,330]

Just now, Mike Honcho said:

The Constitution does not give the President control over foreign affairs, it says Executive can negotiate treaties and appoint ambassadors. Congress with it's power of purse, said this money is to be spent on this and it's up to the Executive to do it.  What happened here is amounts to a line item veto which SCOTUS has rejected.  Not only that, but it's ridiculous that the court ordered a stay on this, that the Executive would suffer more harm than those that depend on the money. Just another example of how this court has become an extension of this administration. And they did it without hearing an argument, this is a major rewriting of the law and they are doing it without a hearing.  

 

In a January 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Joe Biden recounted how, as Vice President, he threatened to withhold a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine if the country did not fire its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin. Biden stated that he told Ukrainian leaders, “I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” and added, “He got fired”.

[Mike Honcho 5,385]

56 minutes ago, seafoam1 said:

 

In a January 2018 appearance at the Council on Foreign Relations, Joe Biden recounted how, as Vice President, he threatened to withhold a $1 billion U.S. loan guarantee to Ukraine if the country did not fire its prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin. Biden stated that he told Ukrainian leaders, “I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,” and added, “He got fired”.

 

Quote

 

The Obama administration's authority to condition the aid was based on the following:

• Congressionally-backed policy: The action was not an unauthorized personal endeavor, but was part of a larger, bipartisan policy backed by Congress that sought anti-corruption reforms in Ukraine.

 

•  

[seafoam1 3,330]

32 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

•  

You missed the whole point. 

[jerryskids 6,998]

7 hours ago, Mike Honcho said:

The Constitution does not give the President control over foreign affairs, it says Executive can negotiate treaties and appoint ambassadors. Congress with it's power of purse, said this money is to be spent on this and it's up to the Executive to do it.  What happened here is amounts to a line item veto which SCOTUS has rejected.  Not only that, but it's ridiculous that the court ordered a stay on this, that the Executive would suffer more harm than those that depend on the money. Just another example of how this court has become an extension of this administration. And they did it without hearing an argument, this is a major rewriting of the law and they are doing it without a hearing.  

My understanding is that it was a temporary stay as it weaves thru the legal system. You can't easily un-give the money. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Also, I think you are significantly underestimating the impact the Executive branch has on international issues. The Department of State comes to mind.

[Mike Honcho 5,385]

4 hours ago, jerryskids said:

My understanding is that it was a temporary stay as it weaves thru the legal system. You can't easily un-give the money. If I'm wrong, let me know.

Also, I think you are significantly underestimating the impact the Executive branch has on international issues. The Department of State comes to mind.

This law was created to prevent exactly what Trump is trying to do in response to Nixon illegally impounding money. Its why each lower court said it was illegal-yet this SCOTUS(Biased beyond belief) feels that it needs to stay the ruling. There is a reason why in 50 years of this law, nobody has ever challenged it.  This case shouldn't even be heard, the president doesn't have a line item veto and if he wants to assert he does, it's not him being harmed by saying he doesn't---it's the people who are being denied the aid. 

 

[seafoam1 3,330]

2 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

This law was created to prevent exactly what Trump is trying to do in response to Nixon illegally impounding money. Its why each lower court said it was illegal-yet this SCOTUS(Biased beyond belief) feels that it needs to stay the ruling. There is a reason why in 50 years of this law, nobody has ever challenged it.  This case shouldn't even be heard, the president doesn't have a line item veto and if he wants to assert he does, it's not him being harmed by saying he doesn't---it's the people who are being denied the aid. 

 

 You are really lost. It's fun to see you try though.