In a move shaking up Washington’s budget politics, President Donald Trump blocked $4.9 billion in foreign aid funding already approved by Congress, using a rarely invoked executive budget tool not seen since the 1970s. The decision has sparked fresh debate over presidential power, America’s global role, and the future of U.S. foreign assistance programs.
What Trump Did: Blocking Billions in Foreign Aid
On Thursday, Trump sent a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.), announcing his decision not to release the congressionally approved funds. The letter was later posted by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on X (formerly Twitter).
The maneuver used is called a “pocket rescission.” Under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, a president can request Congress to cancel funds that have already been appropriated. But by making the request so close to the September 30 fiscal year deadline, Congress doesn’t have enough time to act within its 45-day window, and the funds lapse automatically.
This is the first pocket rescission since 1977, when President Jimmy Carter employed the tactic.
Which Programs Are Impacted?
The blocked $4.9 billion was earmarked for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID)—two agencies long targeted by Trump for budget cuts.
This move follows a pattern:
July 2025 – Trump secured $9 billion in cuts with congressional approval, targeting public broadcasting and more foreign aid accounts.
February 2025 – The White House announced plans to dismantle nearly all USAID foreign aid contracts and slash $60 billion in global assistance.
August 2025 – The administration asked the U.S. Supreme Court to overrule lower courts that had preserved funding for global health initiatives, including HIV and AIDS programs.
For Trump, foreign aid cuts have been a signature policy priority—even though such programs represent less than 1% of the federal budget.
Why Trump’s Foreign Aid Cuts Are Controversial
Supporters of the move argue that American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding international programs when domestic issues remain pressing. They see the pocket rescission as a legal and legitimate way to reduce government waste and reinforce Trump’s “America First” agenda.
But critics warn of serious consequences:
Executive overreach – By using a pocket rescission, Trump bypasses Congress, which constitutionally holds the “power of the purse.”
Global instability – Cuts to USAID and State Department programs may leave vulnerable populations without food, education, or health services.
Damage to U.S. credibility – As America withdraws support, rival powers such as China and Russia could step in to expand influence.
Analysts also fear that if normalized, the pocket rescission could give future presidents a powerful tool to control spending unilaterally.
A Rare Move: The Last Pocket Rescission
The last time a president used this maneuver was nearly 50 years ago, when President Carter applied it in 1977. Since then, most presidents have respected Congress’s final authority over federal spending.
Trump’s decision revives a tool many thought was politically toxic and largely obsolete. Legal scholars are divided: some say the 1974 law allows this discretion, while others argue it violates the intent of congressional oversight.
The Bigger Picture: America’s Changing Role Abroad
For decades, the United States has been the world’s leading provider of foreign aid, humanitarian relief, and global health funding. Even though these programs cost a fraction of the federal budget, they play an outsized role in U.S. diplomacy and global stability.
By blocking billions in aid, Trump is signaling a dramatic shift in foreign policy priorities:
Less global aid, more domestic focus.
Reduced U.S. leadership in humanitarian programs.
Potential weakening of alliances in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Foreign policy experts caution that withdrawing aid could worsen poverty, disease outbreaks, and political instability in fragile regions—issues that often have ripple effects on global security.
What Happens Next?
The administration’s legal appeal to the Supreme Court over other blocked aid programs underscores how far Trump is willing to go to cement his foreign aid policy.
If the Court sides with Trump, presidents could gain broader authority to withhold billions in federal spending without Congress’s approval—a precedent that would fundamentally alter the balance of power in Washington.
Meanwhile, Democrats and some Republicans are weighing legislative options to prevent future presidents from using pocket rescissions as a backdoor budget veto.
Key Takeaway
Trump’s decision to block $4.9 billion in foreign aid with a maneuver unseen in nearly 50 years represents more than just a budget cut. It is a test of executive power, a turning point in U.S. foreign policy, and a flashpoint for America’s global reputation.
As the fiscal year deadline approaches, the fight over foreign aid is shaping up to be a defining battle in Washington—with consequences felt far beyond U.S. borders.
It’s go-time for holiday campaigns
Roku Ads Manager makes it easy to extend your Q4 campaign to performance CTV.
You can:
Easily launch self-serve CTV ads
Repurpose your social content for TV
Drive purchases directly on-screen with shoppable ads
A/B test to discover your most effective offers
The holidays only come once a year. Get started now with a $500 ad credit when you spend your first $500 today with code: ROKUADS500. Terms apply.