3Supreme Court Hands Trump Major Victory In Foreign Aid Fight
The U.S. Supreme Court will allow the federal government to freeze more than $4 billion in foreign aid payments that President Trump tried to cancel last month using a rare “pocket rescission.”
The justices voted 6-3 to grant the Trump administration’s emergency appeal, which stopped a lower court’s order to release the funds that had already been set aside.
A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget said, “This is a huge win for restoring the President’s power to carry out his policies. Left-wing groups can no longer take over the president’s agenda.”
Most of the justices agreed that “the harms to the Executive’s conduct of foreign affairs appear to outweigh the potential harm faced by respondents.” The Post said that the AIDS Vaccine Advocacy Coalition, Journalism Development Network, Center for Victims of Torture, and Global Health Council are some of them.
The Supreme Court’s decision didn’t answer the bigger question of whether President Trump has the power to “impound” money that Congress has approved on his own.
Trump recently told House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he was going to cancel more than $4 billion in foreign aid. This included $3.2 billion in programs run by the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), $322 million from the joint USAID–State Department Democracy Fund, and $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations.
The request, called a “pocket rescission,” was sent to Congress so close to the end of the fiscal year on September 30 that it would automatically go into effect, no matter what Congress did.
It is the first time in almost fifty years that a president has done this.
The funding in question had been designated for nonprofit organizations currently suing the Trump administration, as well as for foreign governments.
A U.S. District Judge named Amit Mehta Ali, who was appointed by Biden, said earlier this month that the administration could not keep the money without Congress’s approval of the proposal to cancel it.
Ali wrote, “So far, Congress has not responded to the President’s proposal to rescind the funds.” “And the [Impoundment Control Act] makes it clear that it is congressional action, not the President sending a special message, that ends the previous appropriations.”
The nonprofit groups that are fighting the Trump administration’s funding freeze said that the pocket rescission broke federal law and put important, life-saving programs abroad at risk.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson disagreed with the majority ruling on Friday.
Earlier this week, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on Monday that will decide whether President Donald Trump can fire members of the Federal Trade Commission without cause. This case could change the definition of presidential power and the independence of federal agencies.
The justices said in a short order that Trump could fire FTC Commissioner Rebecca Kelly Slaughter while the case is still going on. The stay that lets her go will stay in place until the court makes a decision, which is set for December.
The case asks if laws that protect FTC commissioners from being fired violate the separation of powers and if the court’s 1935 decision to uphold those protections should be changed. It will also look into whether lower federal courts can stop removals, like they did when Trump fired Democratic appointees.
Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who are on the left side of the high court, disagreed. Kagan wrote that the order effectively gives the president “full control” over independent agencies that Congress wanted to keep out of politics.
“He can now fire any member he wants, for any reason or no reason at all,” says the majority, even though Congress said otherwise. She wrote, “And he may do this to end the agencies’ independence and bipartisanship.”
Nearly 150,000 California Mail Ballots Rejected In Primary
California election officials are examining why nearly 150,000 mail-in ballots were rejected during the state’s June primary, with late-arriving ballots accounting for most of the increase.
The higher rejection rate comes despite years of election law changes designed to make voting more accessible and ensure more ballots are ultimately counted.
According to data compiled by the California Secretary of State’s office, 148,241 mail-in ballots were rejected during the June primary, representing 1.73% of all mail ballots returned.
That marks an increase from the 2024 primary, when 108,982 ballots were rejected, or 1.56% of all mail ballots cast.
The largest reason for rejection was ballots arriving too late to qualify under California law.
State data shows that 93,479 ballots were rejected because they failed to meet the state’s deadline requirements.
California allows mail ballots to arrive up to seven days after Election Day, provided they are postmarked on or before Election Day.
Voting experts believe many of the rejected ballots received postmarks dated after Election Day, making them ineligible to be counted even if they arrived within the seven-day grace period.
Kim Alexander, president of the nonpartisan California Voter Foundation, said the timing of postal processing appears to be a significant concern.
“Ballots rejected due to lateness are caused primarily to being postmarked too late to count, not because they arrived too late to count,” Alexander said.
Election experts have questioned whether recent operational changes within the U.S. Postal Service may be contributing to delayed postmarks.
Earlier this year, a group of mostly Democratic U.S. senators wrote to the Postal Service expressing concern that mail-processing changes could affect ballot handling during federal elections.
Updated Postal Service procedures mean postmarks may reflect when mail is processed at regional facilities rather than when it first enters the mail system.
Because processing centers have been consolidated in some areas, election officials have warned that postmark timing could be affected.
Before the June primary, California election officials encouraged voters to mail ballots as early as possible because of potential postal delays.
The June election also featured a highly competitive race for governor, which some experts believe encouraged many voters to wait until the final days before casting ballots.
In addition to late-arriving ballots, approximately 44,000 ballots were rejected because election officials determined the voter’s signature did not match the signature on file.
Another 8,300 ballots were rejected because the return envelope did not contain a signature.
State records also show that 743 ballots were rejected because those voters had already cast another ballot.
Other rejected ballots involved missing ballots inside return envelopes or multiple ballots submitted in a single envelope.
The highest rejection rate in the state occurred in Tulare County, where 3.52% of returned mail ballots were rejected.
Alpine County and Merced County followed closely, each recording rejection rates of 3.36%.
California has frequently faced criticism for taking weeks to complete vote counting after major elections, largely because state law permits ballots meeting certain requirements to continue arriving after Election Day.
Following the June primary, President Donald Trump again criticized California’s election system, while the Department of Justice opened an investigation into election administration in Los Angeles County.
Election experts emphasize that the increase in rejected ballots should not be interpreted as evidence of widespread voter fraud.
A 2025 report by the Brookings Institution found documented cases of mail ballot fraud remained extremely rare, estimating roughly four cases for every 10 million mail ballots cast, The Associated Press reported.
State officials have not identified evidence of widespread fraud connected to the June primary, but the increase in rejected ballots is expected to receive additional scrutiny as election administrators evaluate whether changes in postal operations, voter behavior or election procedures contributed to the higher rejection rate.
