Key points
- Trump requested Congress to rescind nearly $5 billion in already-approved foreign aid.
- The proposed cuts target USAID, the Democracy Fund, State Department contributions, and peacekeeping aid.
- This tactic employs a “pocket rescission” approach, capitalizing on the end-of-fiscal-year deadline.
- If Congress fails to act, the cuts could become permanent, effectively a “pocket veto.”
U.S. President Donald Trump has initiated a controversial move to drastically reduce foreign aid spending by requesting Congress to rescind approximately $5 billion in funds already allocated. This strategic maneuver, timed to coincide with the impending close of the fiscal year, allows the President to cut funding unilaterally should Congress fail to act by September. The proposed cuts encompass a significant portion of the budget, impacting various areas of international assistance.
The administration’s proposed cuts include $3.2 billion from the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), along with substantial reductions from the USAID-State Department Democracy Fund ($322 million), State Department contributions to international organizations ($521 million), and peacekeeping initiatives ($393 million from the State Department and $445 million from separately budgeted funds).
This plan was revealed through a presidential notification, triggering a legal mechanism that enables a temporary freeze on the funds pending congressional action.
The White House refers to this tactic as a “pocket rescission,” utilizing a provision within the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. This act allows the President to withhold spending for 45 days while Congress deliberates temporarily; however, the White House hopes to exploit this timeframe, arguing that the funds could effectively expire before the deadline, rendering the cuts permanent. This tactic is likened to a “pocket veto,” which circumvents congressional oversight.
This action has ignited considerable criticism, with opponents questioning its legality. The Government Accountability Office has voiced concerns that such end-of-year maneuvers circumvent the intent of the law, though their opinions are not legally binding.
Constitutional scholars further argue that a successful “pocket rescission” would effectively grant the President a line-item veto power, a power the Supreme Court explicitly struck down in 1998.
The move has also created division within Trump’s own party, with some Republican senators expressing concern about this challenge to the established balance of power regarding federal spending.
