US President Donald Trump has initiated a move to cancel nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid, sparking concerns over the potential humanitarian impact.
The Trump administration has employed a rare budgetary maneuver known as a “pocket rescission” to bypass Congress and unilaterally withhold the funding.
This tactic, last used in 1977, allows Trump to pause the spending for 45 days, which would take the funding beyond the end of the September 30 fiscal year, causing it to expire.
The funding in question was earmarked for foreign aid, United Nations peacekeeping operations, and democracy promotion efforts overseas, with most of it meant to be overseen by the US Agency for International Development (USAID).
Trump has largely dismantled and reorganized USAID under Secretary of State Marco Rubio. The move has been met with criticism from lawmakers, including Republican Senator Susan Collins, who argued that the administration’s attempt to undermine the law is unnecessary and that reducing excessive spending should be done through the bipartisan appropriations process.
The United Nations and aid organizations have warned of the devastating fallout of US cuts, with the humanitarian office describing the current situation as “the deepest funding cuts ever to hit the international humanitarian sector”.
UN aid chief Tom Fletcher stated that the cuts have forced the humanitarian community into a “triage of human survival”. The impact of these cuts has been felt sharply in regions across the world, particularly in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Africa.
For instance, Doctors Without Borders reported that at least 652 malnourished children had died at its facilities in northern Nigeria in the first half of 2025 due to a lack of timely care.
The funding cuts may have severe consequences for millions of people in need. Save the Children warned that Nigeria, Kenya, Somalia, and South Sudan are expected to run out of “ready-to-use therapeutic food” over the next three months.
The Trump administration’s move has also sparked concerns over the potential for a federal shutdown, with Democrats opposing the policy.
The White House has defended the legality of pocket rescissions, citing historical precedents from the 1970s, while the Government Accountability Office considers the practice illegal.
In light of these developments, it remains to be seen how the situation will unfold and what the long-term implications will be for humanitarian efforts around the world.