US President Donald Trump has taken a significant step to block a congressionally approved foreign aid budget, utilizing a rarely seen tactic known as a pocket rescission. This maneuver allows the President to effectively cut $4.9 billion in foreign aid without requiring further legislative approval.
In a letter addressed to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Trump stated that he would not be allocating the budgeted funds, which were earmarked for the State Department and the US Agency for International Development (USAID). The letter, which was posted on the White House Office of Management and Budget’s account on the social media platform X, indicates a clear intention to reduce foreign aid, a notable aspect of Trump’s policy agenda.
Historical Context and Legal Framework
The use of pocket rescissions has not been seen in nearly half a century, with the last instance occurring in 1977 under then-President Jimmy Carter. This approach enables a President to propose the cancellation of approved funds at the end of the fiscal year, effectively preventing Congress from responding to the request in time. The 1974 Impoundment Control Act provides this authority, allowing the President to seek congressional approval for rescissions. However, by timing this request closely to the fiscal year’s end on September 30, the White House ensures that the funds will lapse unused.
Trump’s administration argues that this is a legally permissible tool. Critics, however, warn that its frequent use could enable the executive branch to bypass Congress on essential spending decisions, potentially shifting significant budgetary control away from legislative bodies.
Impact on Foreign Aid and Policy Implications
This recent move adds to a broader trend in the Trump administration’s approach to foreign aid, which has consistently aimed to reduce funding in this area. Earlier in July, Congress had approved $9 billion in cuts, reflecting ongoing tensions over federal spending priorities. The current cut is part of a larger effort that the administration claims will streamline operations, yet it raises concerns regarding the humanitarian impact on global populations dependent on assistance for food and development programs.
In February, the administration announced plans to eliminate nearly all of USAID’s foreign aid contracts, aiming to withdraw $60 billion in overall assistance abroad. As a result, USAID has been significantly diminished, with several remaining programs now under the control of the State Department.
Additionally, the administration has sought intervention from the Supreme Court to halt lower court rulings that have upheld foreign aid, particularly for critical global health initiatives, including those related to HIV and AIDS. The New York Post was the first to report on Trump’s use of the pocket rescission, highlighting its potential long-term implications for US foreign policy and relations.
As the fiscal year draws to a close, the ramifications of this decision will likely unfold, impacting not only financial allocations but also the United States’ global standing and its commitments to international aid.
