The recent announcement by the White House to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid has ignited bipartisan criticism from lawmakers who question the legality of the move and fear its implications on the upcoming government funding deadline. On Thursday, an official notification was made to Congress about the administration's intent to use a "pocket rescission" to bypass the 45-day review period customarily given to lawmakers for considering funding cancellations.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) stated on social media, "Last night, President Trump CANCELED $4.9 billion in America Last foreign aid using a pocket rescission. [President Donald Trump] will always put AMERICA FIRST!" The rescission impacts several foreign aid accounts, with significant reductions across various sectors, including peacekeeping and development assistance.
A pocket rescission, strategically timed near the fiscal year's end, effectively limits Congress's ability to respond, which critics argue undermines the legislative branch's authority over budget matters. Fox News highlighted concerns that this action might be in violation of the law. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) condemned the move, referencing the Government Accountability Office's opinion that pocket rescissions are illegal under the Impoundment Control Act.
Collins stated, "Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law. 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 Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) also criticized the action, framing it as a partisan maneuver and a departure from bipartisanship. Schumer warned that this could exacerbate tensions with the looming September 30 government funding deadline.
The White House defends the decision as a strategic realignment of USAID programs to fit President Trump's priorities. A White House official expressed confidence in their legal position, citing recent court victories, and downplayed concerns that the rescission would affect the continuing resolution (CR) aimed at extending government funding.
As Capitol Hill navigates these complex budgetary waters, the controversy over the legality and impact of the pocket rescission adds to the ongoing debate between the executive and legislative branches over federal spending control and adherence to established appropriations processes.
