On the eve of the September 30, 2025, government funding deadline, a fierce battle has erupted in Washington over President Donald Trump’s latest move to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid and diplomatic funding that Congress had already approved. The controversy, which centers on Trump’s use of a so-called “pocket rescission,” has drawn sharp rebukes from lawmakers in both parties and raised the specter of a government shutdown as the fiscal year draws to a close.
Trump’s decision, announced on August 29, 2025, to withdraw $4.9 billion in congressionally appropriated funds for international assistance and diplomacy has been described by the White House as a decisive step to advance the administration’s “America First” agenda. According to a statement from the White House Office of Management and Budget posted on social media, “Last night, President Trump CANCELLED $4.9 billion in America Last foreign aid using a pocket rescission. Trump will always put AMERICA FIRST!” The administration justified the move as part of a broader effort to cut what it labels “woke and weaponized” foreign aid, aligning spending with the president’s priorities.
But the maneuver has set off alarm bells across Capitol Hill. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) has emerged as one of the most vocal critics, warning that Trump’s approach is “an attempt to undermine the law.” In a statement released on August 28, Collins said, “Given that this package was sent to Congress very close to the end of the fiscal year when the funds are scheduled to expire, this is an apparent attempt to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval.” She cited previous conclusions by the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that such pocket rescissions are unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law designed to prevent presidents from unilaterally canceling legally mandated spending.
“Article I of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse. Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” Collins said, adding, “Instead of this attempt to undermine the law, the appropriate way is to identify ways to reduce excessive spending through the bipartisan, annual appropriations process.” She noted that Congress “approves rescissions regularly as part of this process.”
The rescission package targets a broad swath of foreign aid programs, including $3.2 billion from U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) programs, $393 million from State Department peacekeeping activities, $322 million from the State Department’s Democracy Fund, and over $444 million in other peacekeeping aid. Earlier in 2025, the Trump administration had already moved to dismantle USAID and transfer its core functions to the State Department, a move that has been the subject of ongoing court battles. According to a White House official, the administration decided to direct the pocket rescissions narrowly, focusing on USAID funding to create “as focused of a debate as we possibly could.”
The mechanics of the pocket rescission have further fueled the controversy. Under the Impoundment Control Act, the president can propose rescinding funds, temporarily freezing them for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress rejects the request or takes no action, the funds must be released. However, by sending the rescission request within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year, Trump can effectively run out the clock, causing the funds to expire automatically if Congress fails to act before September 30. Critics argue this tactic is an end-run around Congressional authority.
Senator Patty Murray (D-Washington), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, echoed Collins’s concerns, calling the move “a clear violation of the law.” In her words, “Russell Vought would like us all to believe that making this rescissions request just weeks away from the end of the fiscal year provides some sort of get-out-of-jail free card for this administration to simply not spend investments Congress has made; it emphatically does not. Legal experts have made clear this scheme is illegal and so have my Republican colleagues.”
Russell Vought, the Office of Management and Budget Director and a key architect of Project 2025—a conservative policy blueprint for Trump’s second term—has been unapologetic about the administration’s approach. At a Christian Science Monitor event in July, Vought declared, “I’m not sure the Impoundment Control Act is constitutional. My belief is that it is not. You have these procedures that have fallen into disuse. Why wouldn’t you use them to send up rescissions?” He described rescissions as “one of the executive tools” available to the White House, adding, “The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we’re going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year.”
Notably, the Trump administration had earlier in 2025 succeeded in clawing back $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting through the normal rescissions process, with the GOP-led Congress approving the move. This new pocket rescission, however, is seen by many lawmakers as a more aggressive—and potentially unlawful—test of executive authority.
Democrats have called on Republicans to join them in rejecting the package outright. “Republicans should not accept Russ Vought’s brazen attempt to usurp their own power,” Senator Murray said. “No president has a line item veto – and certainly not a retroactive line item veto. Congress should reject this request and this ridiculous, illegal maneuver – and instead insist on making decisions over spending through the bipartisan appropriations process.”
Some Republicans have also voiced unease. Representative Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), chair of a House appropriations subcommittee, previously labeled pocket rescissions “illegal” and “a bad idea” that “undermines Congress’ authority.”
The timing of Trump’s move has further complicated already fraught negotiations over government funding. With federal funding set to expire on September 30, the risk of a government shutdown looms large. Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-New York) warned, “As the country stares down next month’s government funding deadline on September 30, it is clear neither President Trump nor congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown.”
Meanwhile, the administration’s broader efforts to reshape federal spending have sparked legal battles and public outcry. Records released last week revealed that the White House was blocking funds for low-income housing, education assistance, and medical research, demanding agencies show compliance with Trump’s executive orders, such as a ban on spending for diversity programs. Many budget experts and legal scholars have argued that such practices are illegal.
As Congress prepares to return from its August recess, the fate of the rescinded funds—and the broader question of executive versus legislative power over federal spending—hangs in the balance. The coming weeks promise heated debate, legal wrangling, and, perhaps, a pivotal moment for the constitutional order of American government.
For now, the nation’s power of the purse remains at the center of a high-stakes political and legal showdown, with billions of dollars and the future of Congressional authority on the line.
