In a move that’s sent shockwaves through Washington and reignited heated debate over the balance of power in government spending, President Donald Trump has announced the unilateral cancellation of nearly $5 billion in foreign aid by deploying a rarely used budgetary maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.” The controversial tactic, last attempted nearly half a century ago, has drawn swift condemnation from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, legal experts, and international observers, who warn it could set a precedent for bypassing Congress’s constitutionally granted power of the purse.
According to a series of announcements and official documents posted by the White House Office of Management and Budget and reported by outlets including The Associated Press and The New York Post, President Trump informed Congress on September 2, 2025, that he would not be spending $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. The funds targeted for rescission include $3.2 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), approximately $1 billion from the State Department, and $445 million from the Peace Corps. Specific programs on the chopping block range from $400 million per year for global climate projects to $322 million for the USAID Democracy Fund, $393 million for international peacekeeping activities, and $521 million in contributions to international organizations such as the United Nations and the Pan American Health Organization.
“The Trump Administration is committed to getting America’s fiscal house in order by cutting government spending that is woke, weaponized, and wasteful,” the White House declared in a statement, as reported by the BBC. Secretary of State Marco Rubio took to X (formerly Twitter) to announce, “USAID is officially in close out mode. Russ [Vought] is now at the helm to oversee the closeout of an agency that long ago went off the rails.” The administration has made deep reductions to foreign aid a hallmark of its policy, arguing that such cuts are necessary for fiscal discipline and to refocus U.S. priorities.
The pocket rescission maneuver hinges on a quirk in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act (ICA), which allows the president to propose rescinding funds approved by Congress. Normally, Congress has 45 days to approve or reject such a request, and if they fail to act, the funds must still be made available. However, if the president submits the rescission request within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year—September 30—the funds are effectively frozen until the fiscal year lapses, and the money goes unspent. This means Congress has no practical way to intervene before the funds expire, a loophole that critics say undermines the legislative branch’s authority.
Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and Senate Appropriations Chair, minced no words in her rebuke: “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” she stated, according to Straight Arrow News. “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.” Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer, of New York, echoed these concerns, warning that Trump’s move “could undermine the normal funding process and risk a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown.” Schumer added, “If Republicans are insistent on going it alone, Democrats won’t be party to their destruction.”
Legal experts have also weighed in forcefully against the maneuver. Eloise Pasachoff, a Georgetown University law professor specializing in federal spending, wrote in an academic paper that the ICA “admits no exceptions, indicating that Congress expects the funds to be used as intended before the end of the fiscal year if it does not approve the proposed rescission.” The Government Accountability Office (GAO) shares this view, asserting that pocket rescissions are illegal and violate the president’s constitutional duty to carry out the law. The Center for American Progress warned that if this tactic is allowed to stand, it could give the executive branch limitless impoundment power, enabling the president to dictate spending without Congressional input.
Some Republicans, however, have defended the president’s right to propose spending cuts. Senator Rick Scott of Florida, for example, told Straight Arrow News in July, “I’m an individual that liked line-item veto when I was governor, so I think allowing the president to come forward with ideas to reduce spending, I’m all for.” The administration has argued that the pocket rescission is a legally permissible tool and expressed confidence it would prevail in any legal challenges, though a White House official declined to specify how the tactic might be used in the future or what its upper limits might be. Notably, the administration withdrew a Supreme Court appeal on September 1, 2025, after a favorable appeals court ruling allowed some of its foreign aid freezes to stand.
The last time a president attempted a pocket rescission was in 1977, when President Jimmy Carter tried to use the mechanism to claw back funds. However, Carter’s attempt was less aggressive and occurred well ahead of the 45-day deadline, leading to lingering legal ambiguity about the tactic’s legitimacy. This time, the Trump administration’s move is seen as a direct challenge to Congressional authority, with far-reaching implications for the separation of powers.
Beyond the legal and constitutional questions, the practical impact of the cuts has drawn concern from international partners and humanitarian organizations. The rescinded funds affect programs that provide food supplies, support global health and HIV/AIDS initiatives, and assist peacekeeping operations. As The Associated Press and BBC note, the administration’s decision to largely shutter USAID—America’s main foreign aid agency—has already led to the elimination of most of its contracts, with remaining programs moved under State Department control. Critics warn that the loss of this funding could damage America’s reputation abroad and leave vulnerable populations without critical support.
For now, organizations set to lose funding could attempt to sue, but experts say it’s unlikely the courts could process such cases before the fiscal year ends on September 30, 2025. Meanwhile, Democrats have warned Republicans that if the White House continues to cut funding agreed to on a bipartisan basis, it could jeopardize support for the budget package for fiscal year 2026, raising the specter of a government shutdown.
As lawmakers, legal scholars, and advocates scramble to respond, some are urging Congress to amend the language of the ICA to prevent future use of pocket rescissions. The episode has laid bare the ongoing tug-of-war between the executive and legislative branches over who controls the nation’s purse strings, with high stakes for both domestic governance and America’s role on the world stage.
With the fiscal year’s end fast approaching and the fate of billions hanging in the balance, the debate over pocket rescissions has become a flashpoint in the broader struggle over the limits of presidential power and the future of U.S. foreign aid.
