Trump's $5B 'pocket rescission' escalates foreign aid funding fight

The White House proposed another budget “rescission” on Friday, which would cancel roughly $5 billion in U.S. foreign aid funding that Congress already approved in previous fiscal years, but which the Trump administration has deemed wasteful in its broadside attack on global development programs. This proposal builds on the cancellation of roughly $8 billion in foreign aid funding earlier this summer, but adds an additional wrinkle. Because it was submitted so close to the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, the funds in question will expire regardless of whether Congress votes for or against the administration’s request. This controversial maneuver — known as a “pocket rescission” — has not been used since 1977, and is poised to intensify the battle over whether the Trump administration’s aggressive budget cuts violate the U.S. Constitution, which gives Congress authority over federal spending. It also confirms that the Trump administration’s campaign against foreign aid is far from finished — even after dismantling the U.S. Agency for International Development, canceling the majority of its programs, and shifting control of remaining funds to the State Department. The White House — through budget director Russell Vought — has undertaken a multipronged effort to test the limits of its authority by freezing, reviewing, delaying, and ultimately canceling funds before they can be spent on programs aimed at fighting poverty, improving health, or responding to global crises. “This is a blatant effort to use America's generosity, which is reflected in our assistance through State and USAID, as a test case for efforts to strip Congress of its powers of the purse,” a current senior U.S. government official told Devex on condition of anonymity. Trump’s proposal on Friday to rescind another $5 billion in foreign aid funding focuses on USAID’s development assistance account, contributions to international organizations, peacekeeping operations, and the Democracy Fund. In its justifications for rescinding the funds, the White House repeated claims that they “conflicted with American values,” “interfered with the sovereignty of other countries,” “bankrolled corrupt leaders’ evasion of their responsibilities to their citizens,” and provided “no clear benefit to Americans.” The rescission proposal singles out programs focused on climate change, LGBTQI+ rights, and localization to make its case. The proposal drew condemnation from U.S. development advocates. “No words can capture the cruelty of the Trump administration’s attacks on humanitarian and development aid, or the devastating consequences it is already having on people’s lives and U.S. leadership abroad,” Oxfam America President and CEO Abby Maxman said in a statement. But the White House plan left another critical question unanswered. In a court filing earlier in the week, the Trump administration revealed that $12 billion in U.S. foreign aid funds are due to expire if they are not spent by the end of the fiscal year. Taking Friday’s rescission request into account, that leaves at least another $7 billion in foreign aid funds hanging in the balance. The State Department, which now controls aid spending — but with a small fraction of USAID’s former workforce — has so far given little indication that it can or will deploy billions of dollars in development programming in just one month. Meanwhile, the Office of Management and Budget, which Vought leads, has used procedural delays to prevent aid funds from getting out the door, said Kate Eltrich, a U.S. federal budget expert. “The White House admitted that passing or rejecting this proposal ‘doesn’t matter’ because the funds are going to expire anyway due to their unwillingness to spend foreign assistance, even in areas that the Administration supports, much less that have bipartisan legislation directing the Administration to spend,” Eltrich said. “Since February the Administration planned for force expiration of these funds,” she added. Trump’s previous rescission proposal won congressional approval — after the White House agreed to spare PEPFAR, the global AIDS initiative, from its list of cuts. The latest proposal omits additional cuts to global health programs. Initial reactions to Friday’s rescission suggested lawmakers could put up a stronger fight over the constitutional issues at stake in this proposal. “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,” Sen. Susan Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement on Friday. The Government Accountability Office, an independent agency that reports to Congress, has ruled that pocket rescissions are illegal, but Vought — Trump’s budget director — has long desired to bring that fight to the courts. During Trump’s first administration, Vought pursued — but ultimately abandoned — a similar plan to freeze foreign aid funds past their expiry date with a rescission proposal.