Trump Outwits Congress As Democrats Fume

In partnership with

Today, President Donald Trump made headlines with a decisive executive action that has sent some much needed shockwaves through Washington and beyond. In a letter to House Speaker Mike Johnson, Trump invoked a rarely used tool known as a "pocket rescission" under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act to cancel $4.9 billion in previously approved foreign aid. This move, the first of its kind since President Jimmy Carter employed it in 1977, allows the president to propose the cancellation of funds so late in the fiscal year that Congress cannot act within the 45-day review period, effectively letting the money lapse by September 30, 2025. The targeted funds, primarily allocated to the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and various State Department programs, represent a significant step toward Trump’s long-promised "America First" agenda. This bold maneuver is a triumph of fiscal responsibility and a clear signal that the American taxpayer will no longer foot the bill for wasteful overseas spending.

The decision to wield the pocket rescission reflects Trump’s commitment to redirecting resources back to the American people, and we salute him for that. For years, foreign aid has been a lightning rod for criticism, with many arguing that it disproportionately benefits foreign governments and international organizations while neglecting pressing domestic needs. The $4.9 billion in question includes funding for USAID, an agency Trump has sought to overhaul since returning to office, as well as allocations for international peacekeeping and democratic promotion abroad. Critics of these programs, including Trump administration officials as well as common sense folk, have long contended that such expenditures are riddled with inefficiency and often prop up corrupt regimes or ideologies that run counter to American interests. By slashing this aid, Trump is delivering on his promise to prioritize the well-being of U.S. citizens, ensuring that hard-earned tax dollars are invested in infrastructure, healthcare, and border security rather than squandered overseas.

The legal foundation for this action lies in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which grants the president the authority to propose rescissions of appropriated funds, subject to congressional approval or rejection within 45 days. Trump’s strategic timing—announcing the rescission just weeks before the fiscal year’s end—ensures that Congress, even if it disagrees, lacks the practical ability to override the decision. This is not a circumvention of democratic processes but a clever use of existing law to enforce fiscal discipline. The administration has argued that the move is constitutionally sound, pointing to the president’s duty to faithfully execute the laws, which includes the discretion to withhold funds when they serve no clear national interest. This interpretation aligns with Trump’s broader vision of a leaner, more accountable government, a vision that has resonated with millions of Americans tired of bloated bureaucracies.

The reaction from Democrats has been predictably furious, with figures like Senator Susan Collins leading the charge against what they call an unconstitutional power grab. Collins, a moderate Republican from Maine who often sides with Democratic priorities, has publicly opposed the decision, decrying it as an affront to Congress’s constitutional authority over the federal purse strings. Other Democrats, including progressive leaders, have echoed this sentiment, warning of potential court battles and even a government shutdown if Trump’s action sets a precedent for future spending cuts. Their outrage is understandable—they have long championed foreign aid as a tool for projecting American soft power and supporting global humanitarian efforts. However, this perspective ignores the reality that much of this aid has failed to deliver tangible benefits to the U.S., instead enriching foreign elites or funding programs that undermine American values. Collins and her allies are fuming because Trump’s move exposes the flaws in their idealistic worldview and threatens their ability to distribute taxpayer money to favored international causes.

The broader context of Trump’s foreign aid cuts further underscores the wisdom of this decision. Since taking office, he has aggressively targeted USAID, an agency he views as a relic of outdated globalist policies. Earlier in 2025, the administration announced plans to eliminate 90% of USAID’s foreign aid contracts, a move that sparked protests but also highlighted the agency’s inefficiencies. Programs once touted as lifesavers—such as those addressing Ebola or famine—have often been plagued by mismanagement and duplication, with funds siphoned off by contractors or lost to bureaucratic red tape. Trump’s latest action builds on this momentum, effectively winding down USAID’s operations and reallocating its budget to domestic priorities. This is not isolationism but a pragmatic reorientation of American resources to where they are most needed—within our own borders.

Opponents may argue that cutting foreign aid weakens America’s global standing, but this claim does not hold water. The U.S. remains the world’s preeminent military and economic power, and its alliances are built on mutual respect, not handouts. Nations that rely on American aid often take it for granted, using it as leverage to criticize U.S. policy or push their own agendas. By reducing this dependency, Trump is fostering a more equitable international order where countries stand on their own feet. Moreover, the savings from this $4.9 billion cut can be reinvested in critical areas like veteran care, rural broadband, or manufacturing incentives—areas that directly benefit American families.

The pocket rescission is also a masterstroke of political strategy. By acting decisively and leveraging a legal mechanism dormant for nearly five decades, Trump has outmaneuvered a Congress often paralyzed by partisan gridlock. Democrats like Susan Collins may fume and threaten lawsuits, but their legal challenges are likely to falter against the plain text of the 1974 law. The American public, meanwhile, is likely to applaud this move, as polls consistently show strong support for reducing foreign aid in favor of domestic spending. Trump’s leadership here demonstrates why he was reelected: he delivers results where others dither.

So as you can see, President Trump’s use of a pocket rescission to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid is a bold and justified action that prioritizes American interests above all else. America First baby! By targeting wasteful spending and reasserting executive authority, he has struck a blow against the entrenched interests that have long exploited U.S. generosity. While Democrats like Susan Collins rage against this decision, their protests cannot obscure the fact that Trump is fulfilling his mandate to put America first. This is a defining moment in his presidency, one that will be remembered as a turning point in the fight to reclaim control of the nation’s finances and future.

A New Way to Invest is Delivering Big Results

VCs back startups for outsized returns. Everyday investors wait. But rule changes fixed that. Take Revolut. In 2016, 433 people averaged a $2,370 stake. Today? Its valuation is up 89,900%. No wonder 10K+ people and the investors behind Uber and Venmo are taking the chance on Pacaso. Founded by a former Zillow exec, they’ve made $110M+ in gross profit to date.

Invest Before September 18

_{Paid advertisement for Pacaso’s Regulation A offering. Read the offering circular at invest.pacaso.com. Reserving a ticker symbol is not a guarantee that the company will go public. Listing on the NASDAQ is subject to approvals.}