• President Donald Trump is moving to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid and peacekeeping funds through a rare “pocket rescission.”
• The maneuver, unused in 48 years, takes effect without congressional approval if proposed late in the fiscal year.
• The cuts target USAID projects, democracy initiatives, and U.N. peacekeeping missions criticized as wasteful or politically biased.

WASHINGTON, D.C., TDR — President Donald Trump has triggered a political and legal storm by announcing plans to cancel nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid and peacekeeping spending using a rare maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.” The move, last attempted in 1977, effectively claws back funds regardless of congressional approval if submitted in the final days of the fiscal year.

A Rare Presidential Maneuver

The clawback, revealed Thursday night after the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals lifted a legal injunction, halts $3.2 billion in USAID development aid, $322 million from the State Department’s Democracy Fund, $521 million in contributions to international organizations, and $838 million in peacekeeping allocations.

The funds had been tied up in litigation after the Global Health Council sued the administration earlier this year. With the court clearing the way, Trump quickly advanced the rescission.

Targeting “Wasteful Spending”

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10

The White House Office of Management and Budget defended the decision, pointing to projects it deemed wasteful: $24.6 million for “climate resilience” in Honduras, $2.7 million for the South African Democracy Works Foundation, which published racially charged essays, and $3.9 million for LGBT democracy initiatives in the Balkans. Other cuts include $1.5 million to promote paintings by Ukrainian women.

Peacekeeping allocations slashed in the rescission include $11 million for armored personnel carriers for Uruguay’s forces, $4 million for a Zambian training center, and $3 million for Kazakhstani barracks. U.S. support for the Multinational Force and Observers mission in the Sinai, however, remains intact.

Legal and Constitutional Questions

The legality of pocket rescissions is fiercely debated. The Government Accountability Office has long argued the tactic is unlawful, citing the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires a 45-day review clock for congressional approval. Trump’s OMB counters that precedent exists.

OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta cited examples under Presidents Ford and Carter, arguing that funds lapsed in 1977 without GAO objection. Paoletta has accused GAO of reversing course during Trump’s first term due to “Trump Derangement Syndrome.”

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE THE DUPREE REPORT

GAO, unlike private groups, has standing to sue to block the maneuver. Yet the agency may hesitate amid theories that the Comptroller General role itself is constitutionally vulnerable.

Political Fallout on Capitol Hill

The rescission immediately inflamed debate in Washington. Critics argue the tactic undermines the constitutional power of the purse. Supporters counter that taxpayers should not bankroll projects of questionable merit abroad.

House Democrats blasted the move as “executive overreach,” with one aide saying it was an effort “to dismantle foreign policy by fiat.” But conservative Republicans praised Trump’s action as long overdue. “Every dollar clawed back is a win for American taxpayers,” said Rep. Barry Moore (R-AL), author of the original House bill targeting DUI-related deportations.

The administration has framed the rescission as a victory against waste, highlighting peacekeeping missions criticized for inefficiency and links to foreign corruption.

What Comes Next

Analysts say the rescission could spark a protracted constitutional battle. “The courts will now have to weigh whether the president can unilaterally cancel appropriated funds by running out the clock,” said Michael McConnell, a Stanford law professor and former federal judge.

For foreign governments and NGOs reliant on U.S. funding, the fallout is immediate. From Honduras to the Central African Republic, aid projects will now face uncertain futures.

Trump allies insist the rescission is a test of fiscal discipline. “This is about sovereignty and accountability,” OMB Director Russ Vought said. “The American people never voted to bankroll foreign elites or failed international organizations.”

Opponents warn of diplomatic costs. Former ambassador Samantha Power tweeted that the move “abandons allies and undermines U.S. credibility.”

The rescission now sets the stage for a high-stakes legal clash and a broader battle over executive power.

Will Trump’s pocket rescission set a lasting precedent for executive control over federal spending — or collapse in court as unconstitutional overreach?

Follow The Wayne Dupree Show on YouTube

Freedom-Loving Beachwear by Red Beach Nation - Save 10% With Code RVM10