Ever wonder how a President could cut billions in foreign aid without immediate congressional approval? The Trump administration just made a move to do exactly that, employing a rarely used ‘pocket rescission’ technique. What could this mean for international relations and future spending powers?
In a significant and largely unconventional move, the Trump administration has proposed an immediate cancellation of $4.9 billion in appropriated foreign aid spending, employing a rarely used parliamentary tactic known as a ‘pocket rescission’. This bold maneuver marks the second substantial proposal for rescissions in the current fiscal year, raising questions about executive authority and congressional checks and balances.
The targeted funds, originally allocated to the Department of State and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) during the Fiscal Year 2025 appropriations process, represent a considerable portion of America’s international assistance budget. The administration’s decision comes as USAID itself is reportedly undergoing a closure process, adding another layer of complexity to the proposed financial cuts.
Typically, the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 dictates a clear protocol for the Executive Branch to rescind appropriated funds. Under this legislation, the government must formally request Congress’s approval, initiating a 45-day review period during which lawmakers can deliberate and vote on the proposed cancellation. This standard procedure ensures legislative oversight over federal spending.
However, the ‘pocket rescission’ technique, as utilized by the Trump administration, deviates significantly from this conventional path. It specifically refers to rescission requests made within 45 days of the fiscal year’s conclusion, which is September 30th. In such scenarios, the funds are withheld during the congressional review period, and crucially, if Congress fails to act before the fiscal year ends, the funds automatically expire, effectively bypassing the need for explicit legislative approval.
The historical context underscores the extraordinary nature of this move, as ‘pocket rescissions’ are exceedingly uncommon in modern US politics. The last documented instance occurred in 1983, when President Ronald Reagan sought to cut a comparatively modest $2 million appropriated to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The Office of Management and Budget, a key cabinet-level agency, confirmed the action on X, stating, “Last night, President Trump cancelled $4.9 billion in America Last foreign aid using a pocket rescission.”
Congressional Democrats, who hold minority status in both houses, have vehemently protested against the Trump administration’s broader pattern of budget rescissions, often to little avail. Rescission requests, when formally presented to Congress, can be enacted through legislation with simple majorities in both chambers. This mechanism significantly limits the minority party’s leverage to halt or alter such financial adjustments, highlighting the executive’s considerable influence in these matters.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) swiftly condemned the administration’s plan, asserting in an August 29th statement that it serves as “further proof” of President Trump and congressional Republicans’ intent to “reject bipartisanship and ‘go it alone’ this fall.” This political contention underscores the deep partisan divide surrounding federal spending and the extent of presidential budgetary powers.
The long-term implications of this particular ‘pocket rescission’ remain uncertain, particularly regarding whether funds subject to such a maneuver could be reactivated by a continuing resolution. The Office of Management and Budget has not yet responded to inquiries for clarification on this critical aspect, leaving questions open about the ultimate fate of the substantial foreign aid funds and the precedent this action sets for future administrations.
