$4.9B in Foreign Aid Blocked as White House Bypasses Congress
$4.9B in Foreign Aid Blocked as White House Bypasses Congress
President Donald Trump has taken a bold and controversial step to cut nearly $5 billion in foreign aid funding that Congress had previously approved. This move comes just before the end of the fiscal year and employs a rarely used presidential power known as a "pocket rescission." The maneuver allows the president to suspend and potentially cancel funding without direct congressional approval, igniting a clash over budgetary authority between the White House and Congress.
What is a Pocket Rescission?
A pocket rescission is a little-known and seldom-used budgetary tool that permits the president to request Congress to cancel appropriated funds late in the fiscal year. Under this law, the president may withhold funds for 45 days while Congress decides whether to approve or reject the proposed rescission. If lawmakers take no action within that window, the funds effectively expire at the fiscal year’s end, which this year is September 30. The tactic has not been invoked in nearly 50 years, and its use now is expected to raise legal challenges over the limits of executive power versus congressional control of spending.
Details of the $4.9 Billion Cut
Trump’s recent letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson outlined the intent to claw back $4.9 billion allocated for foreign aid programs. The reductions span several agencies including the State Department and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID)—which has already been significantly downsized under Trump’s administration. The largest chunk, roughly $3.2 billion, targets USAID funding, with additional cuts to State Department democracy programs and United Nations peacekeeping efforts. These funds support global development, disaster response, and diplomatic initiatives, many of which Trump’s administration has viewed as misaligned with its "America First" agenda.
Political Context and Previous Actions
This pocket rescission follows earlier efforts by Trump and congressional Republicans to slash foreign aid and public media funding. In July, Congress ratified $9 billion in rescissions that included cuts to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and foreign aid programs. Trump’s administration has prioritized reducing government spending by eliminating what it considers wasteful or politically inconvenient programs. The move to invoke a pocket rescission escalates these efforts by sidestepping Congress, challenging established legislative prerogatives over the federal budget.
Congressional and Legal Pushback
Key lawmakers have immediately criticized Trump’s move as unconstitutional and a breach of congressional authority. Senator Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, described the pocket rescission as a clear violation of the law, emphasizing that the power of the purse belongs to Congress. Democrats, led by Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, warned the decision risks triggering a government shutdown and could cripple important services at home and abroad. Some legal experts and watchdog groups argue that this maneuver undermines the constitutional balance by allowing the executive branch to alter spending decisions finalized by Congress through a technicality.
Implications for U.S. Foreign Aid and Government Funding
The rescission could have broad consequences for many U.S.-funded international aid programs. Cutting billions could disrupt food security initiatives, health services, and peacekeeping missions worldwide, damaging America's reputation and weakening alliances. Domestically, the standoff contributes to the larger fiscal battle as Congress grapples with passing a spending bill before the government funding expires at the end of September. Trump’s approach signals continued tension with congressional leaders over control of the budget, raising the specter of a potential shutdown amid rising political polarization.
In summary, President Trump's unilateral action to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid using a seldom-invoked pocket rescission marks a significant escalation in the fight over federal spending authority. The move defies congressional approval and has sparked swift backlash from lawmakers across the political spectrum. This fiscal showdown exemplifies the ongoing power struggle between the executive branch and Congress in shaping U.S. budget and aid priorities, with potentially wide-ranging implications both at home and abroad.