President Trump just made a move unseen in nearly 50 years to cut billions in foreign aid! He’s using a controversial “pocket rescission” to bypass Congress and reshape spending. Is this a bold display of executive power or a challenge to the constitutional balance?
In a bold move that underscores a continuing push for greater executive authority, President Donald Trump has unilaterally blocked $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, employing a rarely seen maneuver known as a pocket rescission. This decisive action, circumventing traditional legislative processes, marks a significant assertion of presidential power and raises profound questions about congressional oversight of federal spending.
The President’s directive, communicated through a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, effectively slashes funds allocated to the State Department and USAID. This move represents the first instance of a president utilizing a pocket rescission in nearly five decades, signaling a potential shift in how the executive branch might navigate future budget disputes and spending priorities.
A pocket rescission occurs when a president requests Congress to withhold spending approved funds late in the fiscal year, leaving insufficient time for Congress to act within a mandated 45-day period. As a result, the funds expire unspent. This strategy allows the administration to enforce spending cuts without direct legislative approval, bypassing the customary checks and balances inherent in the US politics system.
The implications of standardizing such a tactic are far-reaching. Critics argue that it could enable the President to bypass Congress on crucial spending decisions, potentially disrupting efforts to fund the government and consolidate executive control over the nation’s finances. This echoes a broader pattern by the Trump administration to exert greater influence, often challenging the established powers of the legislative branch.
Specifically, the targeted funds include $3.2 billion in development assistance grants, $520 million for the United Nations, $838 million for international peacekeeping operations, and $322 million aimed at promoting democratic values globally. The decision to cut these substantial allocations reflects a consistent policy of deep reductions to foreign aid cuts, a hallmark of the administration’s approach to international relations.
The announcement has drawn swift condemnation and concern from various political figures. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, posting on X, alluded to USAID being effectively “shuttering.” Conversely, Senator Susan Collins vehemently stated that the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the “power of the purse,” asserting that any attempt to claw back funds without congressional approval constitutes a “clear violation of the law.”
Adding to the legal and political complexities, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer warned that this use of executive authority could undermine the normal funding process, escalating the risk of an “entirely unnecessary shutdown.” Legal scholars, such as Georgetown University law professor Eloise Pasachoff, have similarly argued that the Impoundment Control Act requires congressional action within 45 days, implying the White House cannot unilaterally decide to withhold funds.
This current maneuver follows previous efforts by the Trump administration to reduce foreign aid and public broadcasting funding, some of which received congressional backing. However, the use of a pocket rescission in this context signifies a more aggressive stance, pushing the boundaries of presidential power and placing increased reliance on the judicial branch to define its limits.
The long-term consequences of these foreign aid cuts extend beyond domestic political squabbles, potentially impacting America’s global standing and its ability to influence international development and humanitarian efforts. The administration’s recent withdrawal of a Supreme Court appeal concerning foreign aid, following a favorable appeals court ruling, further complicates the evolving landscape of executive versus legislative power in budget matters.
