US President Donald Trump has set off a political storm by cancelling nearly $5 billion in foreign aid, using a controversial budget tactic known as a “pocket rescission.” The White House budget office confirmed the move on Friday, saying $4.9 billion had been blocked. Critics in both parties argue the manoeuvre is illegal, calling it an attempt to bypass Congress’ control over federal spending.
Why is Congress angry?
Lawmakers from both sides say the move threatens already fragile talks on government funding. With a 1 October deadline to avoid a shutdown, Trump’s action has made compromise even harder. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer warned that Democrats may not help pass any funding bill unless Republicans push back. “Republicans don’t have to be a rubber stamp for this carnage. If Republicans are insistent on going it alone, Democrats won’t be party to their destruction,” Schumer said.
How does a pocket rescission work?
Trending Stories
Normally, the White House can ask Congress to cancel funds and withhold the money for up to 45 days while lawmakers decide. But because the fiscal year ends sooner, Trump’s budget team says they can simply hold back the money until it lapses, effectively killing the funding without Congress’ consent. The White House defended the tactic, saying, “Congress can choose to vote to rescind or continue the funds, it doesn’t matter. This approach is rare but not unprecedented.”
What funding has been cut?
The biggest target is the US Agency for International Development (USAID), which faces cuts of more than $3.2 billion. USAID has long been in Trump’s sights, and the move will now put the agency under closer control of budget director Russ Vought. Hundreds of millions for global peacekeeping efforts are also being scrapped under the order.
What happens next?
The cuts are already facing legal challenges. A federal judge, Amir Ali, previously ruled Trump’s withholding of USAID funds unlawful. The new order has now been filed in court, setting up another round in the fight. Judge Ali is expected to decide soon whether the new cancellations were “arbitrary and capricious” under the law. Whatever he rules, the case is likely to head back to the appeals court and could eventually reach the Supreme Court. Senator Patty Murray accused the White House of trying to sell an “illegal tactic” as if it were “some sort of get-out-of-jail free card.”

&imwidth=800&imheight=600&format=webp&quality=medium)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)
)
)
&im=FitAndFill=(700,400))
)
)
)