President Trump has moved to cancel approximately $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid with a rarely used maneuver called a “pocket rescission,” the New York Post reports.
The outlet said Trump notified Congress Thursday night of his request to cancel the funds.
A pocket rescission hasn’t been done in nearly 50 years.
Trump scraps $5B in foreign aid in rare ‘pocket rescission’ https://t.co/ZJBvU9SiZu pic.twitter.com/NDFZ9L0o1V
— New York Post (@nypost) August 29, 2025
The New York Post shared additional details:
A pocket rescission is a request that’s presented to Congress so late in the fiscal year — which ends Sept. 30 — that it’s made regardless of whether Congress acts.
ADVERTISEMENTThe clawback includes $3.2 billion in United States Agency for International Development (USAID) development assistance, $322 million from the USAID-State Department Democracy Fund, $521 million in State Department contributions to international organizations, $393 million in State Department contributions to peacekeeping activities and $445 million in separately budgeted peacekeeping aid.
The spending had been destined for a wide variety of nonprofits and foreign governments and was paused earlier this year by the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and then stuck in legal limbo due to an ensuing lawsuit filed by the Global Health Council.
The DC Circuit Court of Appeals on Thursday lifted an injunction in the case, opening the door for Trump to proceed with the first attempted pocket rescission since 1977.
The Trump administration has highlighted spending items that are allegedly wasteful, such as $24.6 million for “climate resilience” in Honduras, $2.7 million for the South African Democracy Works Foundation, which published inflammatory racial articles including “The Problem with White People,” and $3.9 million to promote democracy among LGBT people in the Western Balkans.
Other highlighted allocations include $1.5 million to market the paintings of Ukrainian women.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought previously said the Trump administration was strongly considering using a pocket rescission later in the year.
“Here’s OMB Director @russvought telling me back on July 10th that the WH is seriously considering using ‘pocket rescissions’ to cut out-of-control government spending,” Daily Caller editor Vince Coglianese said.
“It can be done in the final 45 days of the fiscal year. We’re in the zone,” he added.
Check it out:
POCKET RESCISSIONS!
Here's OMB Director @russvought telling me back on July 10th that the WH is seriously considering using "pocket rescissions" to cut out-of-control government spending.
It can be done in the final 45 days of the fiscal year. We're in the zone. pic.twitter.com/LaSkPQDItV
— Vince Coglianese (@VinceCoglianese) August 19, 2025
The Trump administration also asked the Supreme Court to allow the president to withhold billions in appropriated foreign aid before the fiscal year ends.
POLITICO explained:
The Justice Department filed an emergency appeal with the high court Tuesday, asking the justices to pause a federal district judge’s order that requires the administration to come up with a plan to lay out the money by the deadline next month.
Solicitor General John Sauer argued in the new filing that groups representing aid contractors have no legal basis to force such spending and that it’s up to Congress to challenge executive branch spending shortfalls under a 1974 law, the Impoundment Control Act.
“Congress did not upset the delicate interbranch balance by allowing for unlimited, unconstrained private suits,” Sauer wrote. “Any lingering dispute about the proper disposition of funds that the President seeks to rescind shortly before they expire should be left to the political branches, not effectively prejudged by the district court.”
While Sauer’s submission is framed as an argument to defer to Congress, he also makes clear that the administration believes Trump has authority to engage in so-called pocket recissions that would occur so late in the fiscal year that it would be impractical for Congress to reverse them.






