Using an unproven tactic that sparked outrage on Capitol Hill and sparked concerns about a government shutdown, the Trump administration moved to revoke $4.9 billion in foreign aid without congressional approval. President Trump said in a letter to congressional leaders that he would use the Impoundment Control Act, which permits the White House to halt spending in certain circumstances, to remove money from the State Department, international assistance programs, and the U.S. Agency for International Development.
Trump to remove $4.9 billion in foreign aid without congressional approval
The top Republican on the Appropriations Committee, Senator Susan Collins of Maine, referred to the action as an effort to circumvent Congress. She said “any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.” The plan was also criticized by Democrats, who warned that it might sabotage bipartisan talks to continue funding the government after September 30. Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader (D., N.Y.), denounced the move as an “unlawful gambit to circumvent the Congress all together with a so-called ‘pocket-rescission’ package” and said, “if Republicans are insistent on going it alone, Democrats won’t be party to their destruction.” The White House is testing the Impoundment Control Act, which mandates Congress to release funds after 45 days if it does not act on a rescission request.
Budget chief Russ Vought has advocated for a “pocket rescission,” in which the White House submits requests so late in the fiscal year that the money automatically expires. He testified that the Act’s restrictions are unconstitutional because congressional appropriations serve as a ceiling the White House can adjust.
The Government Accountability Office has rejected that interpretation. GAO “stands behind its legal position that pocket rescissions are illegal,” according to spokeswoman Sarah Kaczmarek. The agency is reviewing the new proposal but has not yet made a decision.
Challenges and critics
Legal challenges seem likely. Opponents have filed numerous lawsuits against the administration for spending freezes, and observers anticipate the case will eventually reach the Supreme Court. Rep. Steve Womack (R., Ark.) expressed his concerns to Speaker Mike Johnson and Appropriations Chair Tom Cole, warning that the recent action was “stretching the spirit” of the Act.
The first successful clawbacks in more than 25 years occurred earlier this year when the GOP-controlled Congress canceled $9 billion in broadcasting and foreign aid funds. The White House now wants to reduce peacekeeping and development assistance in Somalia and sub-Saharan Africa, as well as more than $500 million from U.N. programs “that do not support U.S. policies or priorities or have been operating contrary to American interests.”
Humanitarian groups condemned the move. Nicole Widdersheim of Human Rights Watch said, “It’s a very short sighted move, I just don’t understand how that is seen as being in America’s national security interests.”
Featured Image Credit: SHVETS production; Pexels: Thank you!
