Is Trump Really Planning to Slash $5 Billion in Approved Foreign Aid?

This article explores the recent decision by the Trump administration to cut £3.7 billion ($5 billion) in foreign aid already allocated by Congress, using a controversial budgetary tactic known as a pocket rescission. This manoeuvre allows the President to request the cancellation of funds late in the fiscal year, potentially leading to significant implications for foreign aid programmes and legal challenges regarding the power of the purse.

Last updated: 30 October 2023 (BST)

Key Takeaways

• The Trump administration has proposed cutting £3.7 billion in foreign aid, using a pocket rescission.
• This tactic has not been used in nearly 50 years and could face legal challenges.
• Key cuts include funding for USAID and international peacekeeping operations.
• Experts are questioning the legality of bypassing Congress's budget authority.
• Senators have expressed concerns over the potential for a government shutdown due to these actions.

Understanding Pocket Rescissions

A pocket rescission is a budgetary process that allows the President to request the cancellation of funds that have already been approved by Congress. This mechanism is governed by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which aims to ensure that the executive branch does not withhold funds appropriated by the legislative branch. However, the use of pocket rescissions has been rare; the last instance occurred in 1977 during Jimmy Carter's presidency.

The Current Situation

The recent announcement by the White House Office of Management and Budget has raised eyebrows among lawmakers and experts alike. The Trump administration's decision to cut foreign aid funds comes at the tail end of the fiscal year, which concludes on 30 September. By waiting until this late stage, the administration aims to allow the funding to lapse without congressional intervention.

Details of the Proposed Cuts

The proposed cuts affect various international aid programmes and are broken down as follows:

• Approximately £2.2 billion ($3 billion) designated for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)
• £675 million ($900 million) in State Department funding
• £600 million ($800 million) allocated to international peacekeeping operations
• £225 million ($300 million) aimed at promoting democratic values in other countries

This move aligns with the Trump administration's broader strategy to reduce government spending deemed "woke, weaponised, and wasteful," as articulated in their official communications.

Legal and Political Repercussions

The legality of using pocket rescissions is under scrutiny. Critics, including Senator Susan Collins, argue that this tactic undermines the Constitution's allocation of budgetary authority to Congress. The Government Accountability Office has also raised concerns, suggesting that bypassing Congress violates established budgetary norms.

Congressional Response

Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have voiced their apprehensions regarding the implications of this move. Senator Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic Leader, warned that the use of pocket rescissions could lead to "a painful and entirely unnecessary shutdown" of government operations. He emphasised that such actions could disrupt the normal legislative process and exacerbate partisanship.

Historical Context

Historically, pocket rescissions have been infrequently employed, with Jimmy Carter being the last president to utilise this tactic. Carter's attempt to rescind funds was met with significant backlash, and since then, presidents have generally opted for more transparent approaches to budget management. The rarity of this manoeuvre raises questions about its appropriateness in the current political climate.

The Impact on Foreign Aid

As the United States grapples with its global responsibilities, cuts to foreign aid have far-reaching implications. The funding reductions could impact various programmes aimed at humanitarian assistance, international development, and peacekeeping efforts. Critics argue that such cuts could undermine the United States' standing in the world and hinder its ability to promote stability and democratic values abroad.

What Happens Next?

As the situation unfolds, Congress has a 45-day window to respond to the proposed rescissions. Lawmakers will need to decide whether to uphold or reject the cuts, potentially leading to heated debates over fiscal responsibility and the government's role in foreign aid. The impending deadline adds urgency to the discussions, as the funds in question may lapse if no action is taken.

The Broader Implications of Fiscal Policy

The Trump administration's approach to foreign aid and budgetary cuts reflects a broader ideological divide on fiscal policy. Supporters of reduced government spending argue that prioritising domestic interests is essential, while opponents contend that foreign aid plays a critical role in fostering international cooperation and addressing global challenges.

Conclusion

The recent announcement by the Trump administration to cut £3.7 billion in foreign aid through a pocket rescission raises significant legal, political, and ethical questions. As Congress deliberates its response, the outcome could reshape the landscape of US foreign aid and set a concerning precedent for future administrations. How this situation unfolds may well dictate the future of international relations and America's role on the global stage.

FAQs

What is a pocket rescission?

A pocket rescission is a budgetary tactic that allows the President to request the cancellation of previously approved funds by Congress, using the Impoundment Control Act as a basis for this action.

Why did the Trump administration propose these cuts?

The Trump administration aims to reduce what it perceives as "wasteful" government spending, redirecting focus towards domestic priorities and fiscal responsibility.

What are the potential legal challenges to the cuts?

Legal challenges may arise from claims that pocket rescissions bypass Congress's constitutional authority over budgetary decisions, as highlighted by critics like Senator Susan Collins and the Government Accountability Office.

How will these cuts affect foreign aid programmes?

The proposed cuts could significantly impact various foreign aid programmes, including those focused on humanitarian assistance, democratic promotion, and international peacekeeping operations.

What is the timeline for Congress's response to the proposed cuts?

Congress has a 45-day window to respond to the proposed rescissions. If no action is taken, the allocated funds may lapse at the end of the fiscal year on 30 September.

As the debate surrounding foreign aid and fiscal policy continues, it is essential to consider the long-term consequences of such budgetary decisions. The implications for international relations and humanitarian efforts may shape the future of US engagement abroad. #ForeignAid #BudgetCuts #USPolitics