Trump uses rare maneuver to cancel $5 billion in foreign aid

President Trump is implementing an unusual strategy known as a “pocket rescission” to eliminate $5 billion in foreign aid, a method not attempted in nearly five decades.

This decision has ignited a controversy regarding its legal status and has attracted potential scrutiny from federal oversight bodies.

The New York Post reported that Trump’s action specifically targets funds that have been approved by Congress, encompassing a wide range of international assistance programs.

Included in the cuts are $3.2 billion allocated for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) development assistance, alongside $322 million from the USAID-State Department Democracy Fund.

Peacekeeping activities are also impacted, with significant reductions affecting international organizations and specific initiatives in various global regions.

Rare Use of Power Not Seen in Decades

This maneuver marks the first use of a pocket rescission since 1977. Historically, the technique has been linked to the administrations of Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter. The decision is contentious due to its rarity and the ongoing debate about its legality.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) contends that the maneuver is illegal, standing contrary to President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) assessment, which supports the action.

Certain financial allocations have been criticized, such as $24.6 million intended for climate resilience efforts in Honduras. Another criticized spending involves $3.9 million aimed at promoting democracy among LGBT communities in the Western Balkans. Though these are pointed out by critics, the OMB has defended these budget cuts as necessary adjustments.

The cuts coincide with funds that were previously frozen by the White House OMB. Furthermore, these funds were embroiled in a legal case that reached a resolution when the DC Circuit Court of Appeals lifted an injunction. This recent legal development seems to have paved the way for the president’s implementation of the rescission.

Peacekeeping funds are significantly impacted by these cuts, with allocations like $11 million meant for Uruguay’s military, $4 million for a training center in Zambia, and $3 million for constructing Kazakhstani peacekeeper barracks being erased.

Despite these reductions, U.S. involvement and support for the Multinational Force and Observers mission along the Egyptian-Israeli border will remain as it was.

The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 plays a crucial role in these proceedings. While it sets certain restrictions, recent judicial decisions highlight that its enforcement does not extend to private litigants.

Therefore, despite GAO’s viewpoint on the legality of Trump’s actions, there seems to be limited legal recourse for intervention by private parties. A similar strategy was used by President Carter in 1977 when he proposed several rescission measures to Congress.

Some of these funds lapsed prior to or shortly after the designated 45-day timeframe dictated by the earlier-mentioned act. This historical context mirrors Trump’s contemporary actions, echoing a period in political history when such maneuvers were part of the executive branch’s toolkit.

Legality of the Pocket Rescission in Question

Critics of the move include legal experts and members of the GAO who see this as an excess of executive power. They argue that bypassing congressional approval undermines the checks and balances integral to the legislative process.

However, supporters within Trump’s administration assert that adapting to changing global and domestic needs justifies such methods. Aside from legal debates, the potential repercussions on international relationships are also of concern.

The affected governments and programs may have to reassess their operations and objectives given the sudden withdrawal of U.S. financial support. This raises questions about America’s global commitments and its future role in international aid and cooperation.

Mark Paoletta, a figure relevant to this discourse, referred to a previous communication with the GAO in which he pointed out the historical precedent of pocket rescissions. He criticized what he perceives as a bias against Trump, shared in a discussion on a public media platform this month.

The debate continues over the legitimacy and impact of this decision. While the administration focuses on reallocating resources and assessing priorities, detractors underline the potential diplomatic and strategic ramifications.

The intricate balance between legislative intent and executive administration becomes a focal point in understanding Trump’s maneuver.