US Congress Cedes Its Power Over Spending — UNICEF and Other Aid Agencies and Programs Get Lost in the Fray : Tom McDermott

With Senate approval on July 17 and House passage the following day, President Trump’s $9.4 billion rescission package has now gone back to the White House for his signature. The bill, which rolls back billions in previously approved spending—including funds for international aid—marks a quiet but historic shift in the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches.

What began as a fight over specific cuts has become something far more consequential: a test of whether Congress still holds its constitutional power of the purse. In approving the rescission, lawmakers have effectively ceded that authority—allowing the president to unilaterally “claw back” funds that Congress had already voted to allocate.

The immediate impact on agencies like UNICEF remains unclear. In 2024, the U.S. contributed $137 million to UNICEF’s core (or general) budget, but also channeled nearly $1.3 billion through UNICEF for specific programs and emergency responses. The funding for the core budget will almost certainly be zeroed out. What remains uncertain is how much of the additional non-core programmatic support will survive. That decision now rests with the White House Office of Management and Budget—not Congress.

The broader consequence may be even more troubling. In the past, aid advocates could appeal to Congress—rallying public support or working through sympathetic lawmakers to restore or defend funding for essential programs. If those decisions now lie solely within the executive branch, advocacy may become far less effective. In practical terms, future presidents could block funding for programs they oppose—even those with strong bipartisan support—simply by refusing to release already-approved funds.

Few lawmakers addressed this power shift directly. One who did was Senator Brian Schatz (D-HI), who, during a June 25 Senate Appropriations Committee hearing, challenged both the legality and the opacity of the rescission package.

“So, you have no idea whether the program that you are prioritizing is going to be cut or not,” Schatz said. “And they are not providing any clarity about that… You would think that if you're asking the Congress to use this extraordinary authority under statutory law, that you would have a line by line—here’s what we’re cutting, here’s what we’re keeping.”

Schatz warned that the cuts were not just a technical correction to unused funds, as some suggested, but a deliberate attack on key humanitarian programs. Among the confirmed targets, according to Schatz:

• $900 million from global health, including PEPFAR and efforts to combat malaria, tuberculosis, and polio

• $1.3 billion in humanitarian aid, including food, shelter, and water for crisis-affected populations

• $4.6 billion in economic development assistance to frontline countries like Jordan, Ukraine, and the Philippines

• And, most notably, $1 billion in funding for organizations like UNICEF

“Everybody that was opposed to those things … also hastened to say I don’t want to cut UNICEF, I don’t want to cut PEPFAR, I don’t want to cut the World Food Program,” Schatz said. “And now that’s just in the garbage can.”

With the rescission now approved, the precedent is set: presidents can not only propose budgets but override Congress’s funding decisions through inaction or reversal. Unless courts or future legislation intervene, any aid program—no matter how effective or popular—may become subject to the preferences of whoever occupies the Oval Office.

For agencies like UNICEF, which depend on public trust but cannot lobby or campaign for their own survival, the shift is profound. Without champions in Congress, their future may no longer be up to Congress at all.