President Trump just made a move straight out of history books to cut billions in foreign aid, bypassing Congress with a tactic not seen in almost 50 years! This ‘pocket rescission’ is shaking up Washington and sparking a huge debate over who really holds the purse strings. Is this a clever budget hack or a dangerous power play?
President Donald Trump has ignited a significant constitutional debate by employing a rarely seen executive maneuver, known as a “pocket rescission,” to unilaterally block $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. This unprecedented move, the first of its kind in nearly half a century, effectively allows the Trump administration to circumvent the legislative branch’s spending authority and redirect funds without direct congressional approval, raising profound questions about the balance of power within the U.S. government.
A pocket rescission occurs when a president requests Congress to cancel approved funds toward the end of a fiscal year. By timing the request strategically, Congress is prevented from acting on it within the mandated 45-day period, thus allowing the funds to lapse unspent. The last instance of such a maneuver dates back to 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, highlighting the extraordinary nature and potential implications of this recent decision by the Trump administration regarding foreign aid cuts.
The letter outlining the rescission was publicly posted by the White House Office of Management and Budget, specifying that the substantial funding cuts would impact both the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). USAID has historically been a target of the President’s broader efforts to reduce foreign aid, underscoring a consistent policy objective now being pursued through a highly unconventional mechanism.
Should this method become a standardized practice, it would grant the president an unprecedented ability to bypass Congress on crucial spending choices, potentially disrupting legislative efforts to fund the government in future fiscal years. This erosion of congressional power is a critical concern for lawmakers, as it threatens to undermine the established appropriations process and shift significant budget authority to the executive branch.
The utilization of a pocket rescission aligns with a larger pattern observed within the Trump administration aimed at consolidating greater control over the U.S. government. Previous actions, such as imposing tariffs without congressional consent and firing federal workers, have already put the judiciary in a position to define the limits of executive power, further illustrating a deliberate strategy to challenge traditional checks and balances.
The move has drawn swift criticism from across the political spectrum. Senator Susan Collins, a Republican, emphasized that the Constitution grants Congress “the power of the purse,” asserting that any attempt to withhold funds “without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.” Similarly, Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer warned that this “unlawful gambit” could undermine normal funding processes and risk an “entirely unnecessary shutdown,” highlighting fears over presidential overreach concerning US Congress.
Legal scholars, like Georgetown University law professor Eloise Pasachoff, affirm that the 1974 Impoundment Control Act mandates congressional action within 45 days for rescissions to be valid, arguing that the White House cannot unilaterally decide not to spend approved funds. The Act’s “mandatory language admits no exceptions,” suggesting that funds should be used as intended if Congress does not approve the proposed rescission, directly challenging the Trump administration’s interpretation of its executive power.
The funds targeted by this controversial pocket rescission encompass a wide array of international initiatives, including $3.2 billion in vital development assistance grants, $520 million designated for the United Nations, $838 million allocated for international peacekeeping operations, and an additional $322 million aimed at promoting democratic values globally. These cuts will inevitably impact the reach and effectiveness of American foreign aid efforts worldwide.
