In a bold move sparking bipartisan concern, President Donald Trump has requested the rescission of $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid funding without seeking formal approval from Congress, drawing sharp criticism from a key Republican senator.
According to The Hill, President Trump’s latest attempt to cut $4.9 billion in foreign aid funding through a controversial "pocket rescission" tactic has ignited a clash with Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who calls the move an unlawful bypass of congressional authority.
Earlier this year, Trump made history as the first president in decades to successfully rescind funds through the standard rescissions process. In July, the GOP-led Congress agreed to retract approximately $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting. That success appears to have emboldened the administration to pursue further cuts using less conventional methods.
On Thursday, Trump sent a formal request to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) to rescind $4.9 billion in funding designated for a variety of foreign aid initiatives. The timing of this request, made close to the fiscal year’s end on September 30, raises questions about the administration’s strategy. The funds in question are set to expire at the close of the fiscal year, potentially rendering any delay in their release moot.
This maneuver, known as a "pocket rescission," involves submitting a rescission request to Congress within 45 days of the fiscal year’s conclusion. By doing so, the administration could effectively hold the funds until they expire, sidestepping the need for congressional consent. The targeted funds were previously allocated to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, an entity the Trump administration dismantled earlier this year.
The Impoundment Control Act governs the process of rescissions, allowing the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress reviews the request. If Congress does not approve the rescission within that period, the funds must be released for their intended use. However, critics argue that using a pocket rescission to let funds lapse without approval violates the legal framework established by this act.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) has emerged as a vocal opponent of Trump’s latest request. She described the action as a clear effort to bypass congressional authority over federal spending. "This is an apparent attempt to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval," Collins said.
Collins further emphasized the constitutional implications of the administration’s approach. "Article I of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse," she stated. "Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law," Collins added.
The senator also pointed out that there are established processes for addressing funding concerns. "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," she argued. Collins suggested that the annual funding bill for the State Department would be a better avenue for ensuring rescissions align with congressional intent.
"The annual funding bill for the State Department would be the most appropriate way to ensure that any rescissions reflect the views of Congress," Collins reiterated. Her criticism is backed by prior findings from the Government of Accountability Office, which has deemed such attempts to rescind funds without approval as unlawful. This is not the first time the Trump administration has faced pushback from both Democrats and Republicans for seeking to alter previously approved funding.
On the other side of the debate, Trump officials have defended their approach to rescissions. Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought described pocket rescissions as a legitimate option. "One of the executive tools that are on the table," Vought said, framing the tactic as part of the administration’s fiscal toolkit.
Vought further justified the administration’s actions by pointing to broader fiscal goals. "The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we’re going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year," he explained. The Hill has reached out to the White House for additional comment on the controversy but has yet to receive a response.
Meanwhile, the Senate Appropriations Committee is preparing to address the issue. Lawmakers are expected to return in September and begin marking up the proposal related to the rescission request. This upcoming review will likely serve as a critical battleground for determining the fate of the $4.9 billion in foreign aid funding.
The outcome of this dispute could have significant implications for how foreign aid programs are funded in the future. It also raises questions about the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches when it comes to federal spending. As the fiscal year deadline approaches, all eyes will be on Congress to see how it responds to Trump’s latest fiscal maneuver.