The Trump administration has initiated a significant reduction in foreign aid, with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) announcing the cancellation of nearly $5 billion in funding for various foreign aid programs on Friday morning. This action aligns with the administration’s ongoing efforts to curb federal spending deemed unnecessary or misaligned with its priorities.
On Thursday evening, President Donald Trump sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson outlining his intent to rescind $4.9 billion in congressionally approved funding for the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and the State Department. The move employs a rarely used budgetary maneuver known as a “pocket rescission,” which targets more than $3 billion in USAID funding, approximately $300 million for the USAID-States Democracy Fund, and State Department contributions to peacekeeping activities and international organizations, according to a report by the New York Post.
A pocket rescission allows the president to request the cancellation of funds late in the fiscal year, within the final 45 days before September 30, when the funds are set to expire. This timing ensures that the funding is effectively canceled, regardless of congressional approval, due to the approaching deadline.
The decision has sparked contention, particularly among lawmakers concerned about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. Critics argue that the maneuver bypasses Congress’s authority over federal spending, raising questions about its legality.
“Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” said Republican Maine Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a statement on Friday. Her remarks highlight concerns shared by some Democrats and Republicans who view the pocket rescission as an overreach of executive power.
Conservatives Praise Trump Admin’s Foreign Aid Cuts
In contrast, conservative lawmakers have praised the administration’s aggressive approach to reducing government expenditure. Republican Texas Rep. Chip Roy described the clawback funding request as “historic,” noting that the last use of a pocket rescission occurred under President Jimmy Carter in 1977.
The pocket rescission’s legality remains a point of contention. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), a congressional watchdog, has previously stated that the maneuver violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which limits a president’s ability to withhold congressionally appropriated funds. The GAO emphasizes Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse,” arguing that such actions undermine legislative authority.
OMB counsel Marc Paoletta countered the GAO’s stance, calling its claim “absurd” in an August 7 post on X. Paoletta referenced historical precedents, asserting that the GAO had previously acknowledged the permissibility of pocket rescissions under the Impoundment Control Act.
This latest move follows earlier actions by the Trump administration to reduce foreign aid. In July, President Trump signed legislation rescinding $9 billion in congressionally approved funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting, indicating a consistent push to reallocate federal resources.
The administration’s efforts to cut foreign aid began shortly after President Trump’s second term commenced. On January 20, he issued an executive order titled “Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid,” which imposed a 90-day pause on new foreign assistance obligations and disbursements. This pause, enforced by the OMB, aimed to review programs for efficiency and alignment with the administration’s “America First” agenda, as stated by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
Federal Programs Disrupted
The pause disrupted numerous programs, including those addressing global health, humanitarian aid, and economic development. For instance, USAID, which manages over half of the U.S.’s $68 billion annual international aid budget, faced significant operational challenges. The agency, established by Congress in 1961, has been a cornerstone of U.S. humanitarian efforts, supporting initiatives like maternal and child health programs and the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
Critics of the cuts, including humanitarian organizations like Oxfam, warn of severe global consequences. They estimate that the funding reductions could result in 23 million children losing access to education and 95 million people losing basic healthcare, potentially leading to millions of preventable deaths annually. Lawsuits challenging the administration’s actions are ongoing, with groups arguing that the cuts violate the Impoundment Control Act and congressional authority.
The administration’s push to dissolve USAID as an independent agency and integrate its functions into the State Department has further intensified debates. Legal experts note that eliminating USAID, created under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, would likely require congressional approval, a process complicated by the Republican Party’s slim majorities in both chambers.
Supporters of the cuts, including influential figures like Elon Musk, argue that they eliminate wasteful spending and refocus resources on U.S. interests. Musk, tasked with advising on federal budget reductions, has publicly criticized USAID, though without providing specific evidence of mismanagement. The administration has cited examples of programs it considers misaligned, such as funding for climate resilience in Honduras and democracy promotion in the Western Balkans.
