President Donald Trump has announced that he will not spend $4.9 billion in foreign aid previously approved by Congress, invoking a rarely used mechanism known as a “pocket rescission.” The move allows the president to request that funds remain unspent near the end of the fiscal year, leaving Congress with too little time to respond within the required 45-day window. As a result, the money automatically expires.
This is the first time in nearly five decades that such a maneuver has been deployed—the last instance occurred in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter. The directive was made public in a letter from the White House Office of Management and Budget, confirming that funding will be cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Which Funds Are Affected?
The blocked package includes:
- $3.2 billion in USAID development grants
- $520 million for the United Nations
- $838 million for international peacekeeping operations
- $322 million to promote democratic values abroad
Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated that USAID is already in the process of shutting down, reinforcing Trump’s long-standing policy of reducing international aid programs.
Political Reactions
The decision drew immediate criticism in the Senate. Republican Senator Susan Collins called it a direct violation of the Constitution, stressing that “the power of the purse belongs to Congress, not the president.” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer echoed the concerns, warning that the move could undermine the normal budget process and create dangerous precedents for the future.
Critics argue that this undermines Congress’s authority while weakening America’s global influence in areas like development, democracy, and security. Supporters, however, frame it as a cost-saving measure and a restoration of executive control over the federal budget.
A Precedent That Could Redefine Executive Power
Trump’s use of the pocket rescission is more than a technical budgetary maneuver—it represents a fundamental shift in how executive and legislative powers intersect in Washington. Until now, the tool had remained largely unused, but reviving it in this way forces Congress into a defensive position.
If normalized, future presidents could bypass Congress simply by letting funding expire, turning appropriations into little more than symbolic gestures. That not only erodes democratic oversight but also creates uncertainty for long-term U.S. policies, particularly in foreign aid programs where partner nations depend on consistent funding.
Politically, Trump gains in two ways: he trims international spending—a stance popular with his base—and simultaneously strengthens his image as a leader willing to challenge Washington’s institutional norms. On the other hand, the move is likely to trigger legal and political battles, with lawmakers questioning whether the maneuver violates the 1974 Budget Control Act.
Ultimately, this decision may be judged either as a legitimate cost-cutting measure or as an attempt to centralize power in the presidency at the expense of Congress. The way this precedent unfolds will determine how far future presidents can go in redefining budgetary authority.
📌 Source: Associated Press, The Wall Street Journal, The Daily Beast