President Trump just dropped a fiscal bombshell, aiming to slash nearly $5 billion in foreign aid through a dusty, rarely used trick called a “pocket rescission.”
According to The Hill, late Thursday, Trump sent a letter to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), requesting the rescission of roughly $4.9 billion allocated to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), with specific cuts targeting $3 billion for USAID, $900 million for the State Department, and $445 million for peacekeeping aid. This audacious move, which hasn’t been dusted off in nearly 50 years, could effectively block the funds from being spent by the fiscal year’s end on September 30, regardless of what Congress thinks. It’s a bold play for an administration laser-focused on trimming what it sees as wasteful spending abroad.
Under the Impoundment Control Act, the president can withhold funding for 45 days while Congress mulls over the request. If lawmakers don’t approve within that window, the money must be released. But here’s the kicker: a pocket rescission, timed within 45 days of the fiscal year’s close, lets the funds quietly expire if Congress drags its feet.
This isn’t just a budget cut; it’s a statement of priorities aligned with Trump’s “America first” vision. The administration has long argued that too much taxpayer money gets funneled overseas while domestic needs fester. Why send billions abroad when our own borders and infrastructure cry for attention?
The last time a pocket rescission was used was way back in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, a relic of a bygone era. That’s nearly half a century of this tool sitting idle, and now Trump’s wielding it like a fiscal Excalibur. The New York Post broke the story, shining a light on a maneuver most of Washington had forgotten.
Of course, not everyone’s cheering from the sidelines. Some lawmakers are already grumbling about ceding the power of the purse, worried this sets a precedent for the executive branch to sidestep Congress on spending. It’s a fair concern, but isn’t it also fair to question why we’re sending billions overseas with so little scrutiny?
Legal challenges are likely brewing over this move, with critics poised to argue it upsets the balance of power on federal spending. Congress is supposed to hold the purse strings, after all. But if the law allows for pocket rescissions, shouldn’t the administration have the right to use every tool at its disposal?
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget noted, regarding the 1977 case, that the Government Accountability Office once suggested Congress amend the law to block future pocket rescissions. Well, guess what? Congress didn’t act, and now they’re stuck with the consequences of inaction.
The same spokesperson added, “But because no amendments were made, it remains a lawful tool for the executive branch.” Turns out, ignoring a problem doesn’t make it disappear. If lawmakers didn’t want this mechanism used, they’ve had decades to fix it.
Interestingly, this isn’t Trump’s first swing at trimming global aid fat. Back in July, the GOP-led Congress approved an earlier White House request to rescind $9 billion in funding for international programs and even the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which bankrolls NPR and PBS. That move showed some bipartisan willingness to rethink spending priorities.
Yet, this pocket rescission gambit feels different—more aggressive, more final. It’s a direct challenge to Congress’s authority, and you can bet the debates will be fiery. Will lawmakers push back, or will they let nearly $5 billion slip away?
For conservatives tired of seeing American dollars prop up foreign projects while our own communities struggle, this is a refreshing stance. It’s not about isolationism; it’s about accountability. Why should taxpayers foot the bill for programs that don’t directly benefit our nation?
On the flip side, those who value congressional oversight have a point worth considering. The power of the purse is a cornerstone of our system, and any move that seems to undermine it deserves scrutiny. Still, if the funds are truly misaligned with national interests, shouldn’t we applaud efforts to redirect them?
As the fiscal year ticks down to September 30, all eyes are on Congress to see if they’ll act within the 45-day window—or if they’ll let the pocket rescission do its quiet work. This isn’t just about $5 billion; it’s about who really controls federal spending in the long run.
Trump’s latest move is a reminder that every dollar spent should face tough questions, especially when it’s headed overseas. While the legal and political battles loom, one thing is clear: the “America first” mindset isn’t just rhetoric—it’s policy in motion. Let’s see if Congress can match that energy, or if they’ll fumble the ball as the clock runs out.
