President Trump’s latest move to gut nearly $5 billion in foreign aid has sparked a firestorm on Capitol Hill. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) dropped the bombshell on Friday, wielding a rare "pocket rescission" to yank funds from programs like USAID and State Department contributions.
The Daily Caller reported that the Trump administration’s decision targets $4.9 billion in congressionally approved funds, including $3 billion for USAID and $300 million for the USAID-States Democracy Fund.
This maneuver, aimed at curbing what Trump calls wasteful spending, also cuts State Department support for peacekeeping and international organizations. In one fell swoop, the White House is shaking up the foreign aid landscape.
On Thursday evening, Trump fired off a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, laying out his plan to rescind the funds. The timing is no accident—using a pocket rescission, which only works in the final 45 days before the fiscal year ends on September 30, ensures the funds vanish unless Congress acts fast. It’s a high-stakes game of budgetary chicken.
The pocket rescission, last used by President Jimmy Carter in 1977, is a dusty tool the Trump team dusted off with glee.
It cancels funding near the fiscal year’s end, sidestepping congressional approval, and has already drawn howls of protest. Critics argue it’s a power grab that thumbs its nose at Congress’s constitutional purse strings.
“Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.
Collins’ outrage is predictable, but her legal stance leans on the Government Accountability Office’s (GAO) claim that pocket rescissions are illegal. Yet, the GAO’s opinion isn’t law, and the Trump team smells an opportunity.
OMB counsel Marc Paoletta scoffed at the GAO’s stance, calling it “absurd” in an August 7 post on X. Paoletta’s confidence suggests the administration is ready to fight this in court, where the maneuver’s legality could be tested. The stage is set for a legal showdown that could redefine executive power.
The move builds on Trump’s broader crusade to slash spending deemed unnecessary. In July, he signed legislation rescinding $9 billion in foreign aid and public broadcasting funds, proving he’s not shy about wielding the budgetary axe. This latest $5 billion cut is a continuation of that mission, wrapped in MAGA bravado.
Russell Vought, OMB Director, met with Republican senators on July 15 to rally support for the rescissions package. His pitch, backed by Trump, framed the cuts as a way to redirect taxpayer dollars to American priorities. It’s a message that resonates with the base but risks alienating moderates.
Rep. Chip Roy, R-Texas, hailed the funding clawback as “historic.” Roy’s enthusiasm reflects the MAGA wing’s glee at sticking it to bloated bureaucracies. But not everyone in the GOP is cheering—some fret this sets a dangerous precedent for executive overreach.
Democratic lawmakers, predictably, are up in arms, and even some Republicans are uneasy about the pocket rescission’s implications.
The GAO’s stance that it violates Congress’s “power of the purse” gives opponents ammunition for a potential lawsuit. If litigation follows, it could tie up the funds in legal limbo for months.
The New York Post first broke down the targeted funding, shining a light on the programs in the crosshairs. USAID’s $3 billion hit is the lion’s share, with the USAID-States Democracy Fund and State Department peacekeeping contributions also taking a beating. These cuts aren’t random—they’re a deliberate jab at programs the administration views as bloated.
Yet, the pocket rescission’s timing is its genius and its Achilles’ heel. By acting late in the fiscal year, Trump’s team bets Congress won’t have time to reverse the cuts. But that same urgency could fuel accusations of executive arrogance, rallying opponents.
Trump’s defenders argue this is a necessary correction to decades of unchecked foreign aid spending. Why pour billions into international programs, they ask, when American infrastructure and borders need attention? It’s a fair question, but one that ignores the diplomatic fallout of slashing global commitments.
Critics, meanwhile, see a dangerous precedent that could let future presidents bypass Congress altogether. Collins’ warning carries weight—Congress’s authority over spending is a cornerstone of checks and balances. Handing that power to the executive risks a slippery slope, no matter who’s in the Oval Office.
