WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has told House Speaker Mike Johnson that his administration will not spend $4.9 billion in foreign aid already approved by Congress, invoking a rarely used budget maneuver last deployed nearly 50 years ago.
The decision, revealed Thursday in a letter sent to Johnson and posted publicly Friday by the White House Office of Management and Budget, represents the first use of what’s known as a “pocket rescission” since 1977. The funds would have gone to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), two of the government’s primary foreign policy arms.
What is a pocket rescission?
Under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, presidents may propose canceling congressionally approved funds. Congress then has 45 days to act. But if the request is made late enough in the fiscal year — which ends on September 30 — the legislative branch effectively runs out of time. The money remains unspent, lapses, and the rescission takes effect without lawmakers ever formally agreeing.
The tactic has long been controversial because, while legal, it skirts the constitutional principle that Congress controls federal spending. The Trump administration insists the move is permissible, but critics argue that if repeated, it could fundamentally weaken Congress’s “power of the purse.”
Last seen in Carter’s presidency
The last time a president used this strategy was in 1977, under Jimmy Carter, who attempted to trim back congressional allocations in a similar fashion. Since then, both Democratic and Republican administrations have avoided pocket rescissions, viewing them as politically risky and legally dubious.
By reviving the tactic, Trump has not only revived an old budget fight but has also opened the door for future presidents to withhold funds without needing congressional approval — a sharp break from decades of fiscal precedent.
Political and diplomatic fallout
Foreign aid has long been a politically divisive issue, but Congress had already signed off on the $4.9 billion package. Cutting it at this stage could ripple across global programs ranging from humanitarian assistance to development projects, undermining U.S. commitments abroad.
Trump has repeatedly criticized foreign aid as wasteful spending, arguing that taxpayer dollars should be focused at home. His latest move may energize his supporters, who see foreign assistance as an unnecessary drain. But it also risks backlash from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, many of whom view U.S. aid as critical to advancing national security and global stability.
A test of constitutional balance
By using the pocket rescission, Trump effectively bypassed the legislative branch, placing himself at the center of a renewed debate over separation of powers. Legal experts warn that if such rescissions become a standard White House tool, it could erode Congress’s constitutional authority to decide how federal dollars are spent.
“The Impoundment Control Act was supposed to prevent presidents from unilaterally refusing to spend money,” one budget analyst noted. “This maneuver exploits a loophole in the law — and if normalized, it changes the balance of power.”
What comes next
Congress has little time to respond. With just over a month left before the fiscal year closes, the window to block the rescission is practically nonexistent. Once September 30 arrives, the funds will expire — leaving the foreign aid cuts in place.
The move has already drawn scrutiny from Democrats and some Republicans, who are weighing whether to challenge it legislatively or in the courts.
For now, Trump has scored a rare victory in his long-running campaign to slash foreign aid. But the implications stretch far beyond a single budget line: they raise the possibility that future presidents, of either party, could deploy pocket rescissions to reshape government spending without congressional consent.
As the fiscal clock ticks down, Washington is left with an uncomfortable question: Has the power of the purse quietly shifted from Capitol Hill to the Oval Office?