Trump, contrary to the wishes of Congress, advances actions to reduced $4.9 billion in foreign aid allocations.
In a move that has sparked controversy and raised questions about constitutional authority, the White House has proposed to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid programs approved by Congress. The proposal, which was made using the legal authority under the Impoundment Control Act, has infuriated Democrats who view it as an "illegal ploy to steal their constitutional power to determine how taxpayer dollars get spent."
The proposal, outlined in a 15-page notification sent to Congress on Thursday night, largely targets accounts funding the U.S.' contributions to the United Nations and economic development and aid programs run by the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The single biggest clawback would be a $445 million cut to U.S. funding of peacekeeping operations abroad, including through the U.N.
The White House's move invokes a little-known and legally untested power, with Republicans arguing that the executive branch has broad discretion to use pocket rescissions. However, Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, the chair of the Appropriations Committee, called the move a clear violation of the law. The Government Accountability Office has previously ruled that pocket rescissions are illegal.
The administration's proposal has been met with resistance from both sides of the aisle. Rep. Rosa DeLauro refuses to call Vought's gambit a "pocket rescission" because it gives his unlawful attempt to steal the promises Congress enacted an air of legitimacy it does not deserve. Sen. Chuck Schumer suggests that the request is "further proof President Trump and congressional Republicans are hellbent on rejecting bipartisanship and 'going it alone' this fall."
The move could complicate lawmakers' attempts to cobble together a bipartisan funding package to prevent a government shutdown. Republicans could bring the matter to a vote sooner, but party leaders have shown little appetite for resisting the president's spending demands and asserting their own prerogatives.
It is worth noting that this is not the first time such a proposal has been made. Presidents Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter have proposed pocket rescissions in the past, with Ford proposing multiple rescissions to Congress in 1975, but the targeted funds essentially expired without being voted on.
The Government Accountability Office said this incident exposed a "major deficiency" in the anti-impoundment rules and recommended changes that Congress never adopted. An Office of Management and Budget spokesperson calls pocket rescissions a "lawful tool available to the executive branch to reduce unnecessary spending."
The White House's proposed budget earlier this year suggested eliminating the Democracy Fund at the State Department entirely, further fueling concerns about the administration's commitment to foreign aid. As the fiscal year ends on Sept. 30, before the 45-day period in which Congress is required to consider a rescission request from the White House, the future of these foreign aid programs remains uncertain.
