Trump’s Bold Move: Cancelling $4.9 Billion in Foreign Aid Without Congress Approval

Donald Trump has informed House Speaker Mike Johnson that he plans to cut $4.9 billion in foreign aid approved by Congress. This move uses a tactic called a “pocket rescission.” When a president proposes to cancel authorized spending just before the fiscal year ends, Congress has only 45 days to act. If they don’t, the funds expire. This method hasn’t been used in nearly 50 years.

In a letter to Johnson, Trump highlighted that the cuts would affect the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which have long been targets for budget cuts under his administration.

The last recorded pocket rescission was in 1977 by President Jimmy Carter. The Trump administration believes this action is legally valid. However, if this approach becomes routine, it could prompt the White House to sidestep Congress on significant funding decisions.

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act allows the president to propose canceling funds that Congress has already approved. While Congress can respond to these proposals, timing is crucial. By suggesting cuts close to the end of September, the White House ensures that funds won’t be used, effectively making them lapse.

Previously, Trump sought congressional approval for further budget cuts, successfully reducing spending by $9 billion earlier this year. Major cuts targeted popular programs, including public broadcasting and international aid.

Trump’s push to slash foreign aid aligns with a broader trend in his presidency, despite the relatively small savings when compared to the national deficit. This approach raises concerns about America’s reputation abroad, especially as foreign programs aimed at providing food and development assistance face the threat of elimination.

In February, the Trump administration announced plans to cancel nearly all of USAID’s foreign aid contracts. By shifting control of remaining programs to the State Department, the administration aims to minimize foreign aid’s role.

Trump’s administration has recently appealed to the Supreme Court to halt lower court decisions that permit foreign aid spending for global health initiatives, particularly for HIV and AIDS.

This pushback highlights ongoing tensions in U.S. foreign policy and funding. As the political landscape evolves, how these funding decisions will impact global health and development remains a matter of active debate.

For more information on the implications of these cuts to global aid programs, see The Guardian’s coverage.

Source link