Trump administration's $4.9 billion foreign aid cut sparks legal controversy

Buckle up, folks—President Donald Trump just dropped a fiscal bombshell by slashing $4.9 billion in foreign aid with a move that’s got Congress in a tizzy.

On Thursday, the White House notified Congress of its plan to cancel this massive sum through a so-called "pocket rescission," a tactic designed to sidestep the usual 45-day review period by timing the cut near the fiscal year’s end, while also drawing sharp criticism over its legality and impact on looming government funding talks.

This isn’t just a random trim; the cuts target specific programs like $520 million from international organizations, over $390 million from peacekeeping activities, $322 million from democracy initiatives, $445 million from other peacekeeping efforts, and a whopping $3 billion from development assistance. These reductions, according to the administration, don’t fit Trump’s America First vision. It’s a bold play, but one that’s raising eyebrows across the political spectrum.

Timing the Cut: A Clever Dodge?

So, what’s a pocket rescission anyway? It’s a strategic maneuver to bypass the standard process where Congress gets 45 days to review funding cuts, leaving lawmakers with barely any time to react as the fiscal year winds down. The White House seems to be banking on speed to push this through.

Contrast this with the normal rescission route, where earlier this year Congress approved $9 billion in reductions to public broadcasting and foreign aid after proper review. This time, the administration’s hurry-up offense feels more like a sneak play than a fair game. And the refs—lawmakers on both sides—are already blowing the whistle.

The Government Accountability Office has previously ruled that pocket rescissions violate the Impoundment Control Act, which sets the rules for such funding maneuvers. That’s not a small detail; it’s a legal red flag waving in the wind. Yet, the White House seems unfazed, ready to defend its playbook in court.

White House Stands Firm on Cuts

Speaking of defense, an unnamed White House official confidently stated on a press call, "This will, I'm sure, be litigated." They added that recent court wins give them confidence to push forward. Well, confidence is one thing, but skirting the law is another—let’s see how the judges call this one.

The Office of Management and Budget took to X, proudly declaring that Trump "CANCELED $4.9 billion" in what they call "America Last" aid, emphasizing his commitment to putting our nation first. That’s a catchy slogan, but when you’re cutting programs tied to global stability, one wonders if the math of “America First” adds up to long-term wins.

Part of the White House’s goal here is to dismantle lingering elements of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), which they view as misaligned with current priorities. It’s a clear signal: foreign aid isn’t getting a free pass under this administration. But at what cost to our international standing?

Lawmakers Cry Foul Over Legality

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, didn’t mince words, saying, "Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation." She’s spot on—Congress isn’t just a bystander; it’s supposed to be a partner in these decisions. Ignoring that role isn’t just bad form; it’s a potential legal fumble.

Collins also suggested a better path, noting that excessive spending should be tackled through the "bipartisan, annual appropriations process." Why rush a shady end-run when there’s a proper field to play on? Seems like a question the White House might not want to answer.

Meanwhile, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., painted a grim picture, warning that "neither President Trump nor Congressional Republicans have any plan to avoid a painful" government shutdown as the September 30 funding deadline looms. He’s playing the doom-and-gloom card, but with negotiations already tense, this cut could indeed pour fuel on a smoldering fire.

Shutdown Fears Loom Amid Tensions

Schumer doubled down, accusing Republicans of being "hell-bent on rejecting bipartisanship" with this unlawful move. Hyperbole aside, his point about teamwork—or the lack thereof—hits a nerve when government funding hangs in the balance. Turns out, unilateral actions have consequences, even if the White House insists otherwise.

Prior to this announcement, Schumer and House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries reached out to House Speaker Mike Johnson and Senate Majority Leader John Thune, seeking a sit-down to hash out funding plans before the deadline. The White House, for its part, wants a clean continuing resolution with no extra spending tacked on, hoping to win over reluctant Republicans. It’s a tightrope walk with no safety net in sight.

Despite the uproar, a White House official dismissed shutdown fears, asserting, "We don't believe that this should distract" from ongoing appropriations talks. That’s a brave face, but with lawmakers fuming and a critical deadline approaching, this pocket rescission might just be the spark that lights a bigger fuse. Only time will tell if America First means Congress last.