President Donald Trump has officially notified Congress of his intention to cancel a staggering $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid through a rare mechanism known as a “pocket rescission.” This unprecedented move has sparked significant criticism from Democrats and raised legal questions from at least one prominent Republican senator. The implications of this decision could lead to a high-stakes legal battle in the coming months as Congress faces a tight deadline to approve new funding.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has proposed this funding clawback at a critical time, as the end of the fiscal year approaches. If Congress fails to address the proposal, the funding is at risk of being canceled outright. Secretary of State Marco Rubio defended the administration's actions, stating, “For the first time in nearly 50 years, the President is using his authority under the Impoundment Control Act to deploy a pocket rescission, cancelling $4.9 billion in woke and weaponized foreign aid money that violates the President’s America First priorities.”
However, this controversial strategy could complicate bipartisan negotiations aimed at preventing a government shutdown. Congress must approve new funding by September 30, or risk halting significant government operations. Democrats have warned that the use of pocket rescissions could hinder these crucial discussions. Representative Rosa DeLauro, the leading Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, condemned the action, labeling it illegal. “He continues to want to steal money that has been appropriated. We appropriated this money. They are just in such violation of the law,” she expressed in a statement to CNN.
DeLauro emphasized that Democrats would seek to impose stricter limits on Trump’s powers during the forthcoming funding negotiations with Republicans, insisting that “we have to push for guardrails.” OMB Director Russell Vought has indicated that the pocket rescission remains on the table, despite ongoing disputes regarding its legality—a tool not utilized in nearly five decades. Vought, who previously served in the same role during Trump’s first term, has a comprehensive understanding of the president’s authority and the mechanisms available to further Trump’s agenda.
Many of Vought's initiatives specifically challenge the congressional power of the purse, facing accusations of illegality from both Democrats and the Government Accountability Office (GAO). Some Republicans, while hesitant to publicly criticize the president's actions, have expressed discontent with the administration's aggressive encroachment on their traditional prerogatives.
Democratic lawmakers and Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins quickly voiced their disapproval of the pocket rescission, asserting that it contravenes the law. Collins stated, “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 referenced a GAO decision that deemed pocket rescissions illegal, further complicating the administration's legal stance.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also condemned the pocket rescission, claiming that it exemplifies a rejection of bipartisanship by President Trump and Congressional Republicans. “The announcement of the Administration’s plan to advance an unlawful ‘pocket rescission’ package is further proof President Trump and Congressional Republicans are hellbent on rejecting bipartisanship and ‘going it alone’ this fall,” he stated.
With the funding deadline on the horizon, a White House official indicated that the administration is advocating for a “clean” stopgap funding measure, known as a continuing resolution, “of some length.” The official expressed confidence that Democrats would bear the blame if they oppose this proposal, stating, “It’s very hard for me to believe that they are going to oppose a clean CR that would cause them to be responsible for a government shutdown.”
The White House official maintained that the administration stands on “firm legal ground” regarding the pocket rescission, citing an interpretation of a past GAO finding on the Impoundment Control Act. The president communicated his decision to lawmakers in a letter, outlining the cancellation of funds from various programs, including USAID development assistance and State Department peacekeeping activities.
This recent rescission proposal marks Trump's second attempt to cut funding that Congress has already approved. The notification triggers an automatic 45-day pause in the designated funding, allowing lawmakers a window to act on the proposal. If no legislation is passed during this period, the funding will automatically resume. Notably, the last president to employ a pocket rescission was Jimmy Carter in 1977.
As the landscape of federal funding negotiations continues to evolve, the ramifications of Trump's pocket rescission could significantly influence both legal interpretations of executive power and the dynamics of bipartisan cooperation in Congress.
