House Appropriators Seek Cuts to US International Assistance but Would Moderate Administration's Proposed Overhaul

By Erin Collinson and Justin Hurley

Upon taking office in January, President Trump initiated a dramatic overhaul of international assistance. As we described in May, the administration’s FY26 budget request—if realized—would redefine America’s role in the world. Last week, the Republican-led House Appropriations Committee advanced in a party-line vote its FY26 spending bill, which covers much of the US international affairs budget. The bill would level a considerable blow to that budget—about a 22 percent reduction in funding from last fiscal year's enacted level, although far less steep once factoring in the recent rescissions package that lowered FY25 levels. But for many programs, the cuts in the House bill would be less severe than those proposed by the administration.

(You can find the House bill text HERE, and the accompanying report HERE. The State Department’s FY26 Congressional Budget Justification is HERE, and the FY26 Treasury International Programs Justification is HERE.)

Lawmakers signaled particular interest in preserving global health assistance and ensuring continued investments in agricultural development, education, and water and sanitation. The measure envisions a future for the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC) but would walk back from a slew of multilateral commitments. Here’s a rundown of what caught our attention while we wait for Senate Appropriators to offer their version. (The interactive charts above and below have recent rescissions subtracted from FY25 funding totals. Toggle to see where supplemental and emergency spending has been substantial in recent years.)

A lifeline for global health?

US global health programs have enjoyed strong bipartisan support over the years. But in its scaled-down vision for US international assistance, the administration proposed a 60 percent reduction in funding for global health programs in FY26. In one of the more dramatic departures from the administration, House appropriators signaled reluctance to take an axe to US global health investments—particularly those responsible for saving millions of lives each year. Instead, the spending bill would keep funding nearly level with FY2025, after accounting for the recent $500 million rescission.

Lawmakers appear more aligned with the administration in their desire to see more concerted effort in transitioning PEPFAR programming to recipient countries, directing the Secretary of State to develop a strategy on PEPFAR transition. But while media reports suggest the State Department could be considering a more abrupt off-ramp, House appropriators propose a coordinated and data-driven process, “prioritizing the safety and health of beneficiaries.”

Looking ahead, health-focused international organizations could become a flashpoint. House Republicans appeared to reject the administration’s proposed retreat from Gavi, instead including a $300 million allocation in the accompanying report. Their recommended $1.5 billion contribution to the Global Fund would put the US on track to exceed the administration’s proposed cap on contributions, assuming other donors pony up.

Other bilateral economic assistance: consolidate but don’t obliterate?

Where the administration proposed eliminating a number of core bilateral economic assistance accounts in favor of a flexible America First Opportunity Fund, the Republicans on the House Appropriations Committee are pursuing a less aggressive approach to reform—merging three accounts (Development Assistance, Economic Support Fund, and Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia) into one under a considerably higher topline while preserving a distinct fourth (Democracy Fund). The chart depicts recent funding trends in these accounts—toggle for the addition of supplemental aid, which spiked in recent years with the provision of economic aid to Ukraine.

The House report encourages linking future economic aid with a country’s alignment with US policy priorities under the new mega “National Security Investment Programs” fund. But appropriators also outline plans for continued investment in areas of long-term US interest, including advancing food security, boosting educational attainment, and promoting women’s empowerment. The report also suggests a reprieve for UNICEF—even as other multilateral organizations take a hit. Still, the measure would rescind some past appropriations provided to the Development Assistance and Economic Support Fund accounts.

Humanitarian aid faces cuts, but House rejects White House's deeper reductions

With the dissolution of USAID, the future of US humanitarian assistance is uncertain. The State Department has pledged to assume key functions of the agency. But given the Department's limited staffing, operational guidance, and existing mechanisms, it’s hard to forecast the scale and scope of US capacity to respond in crises. House appropriators appear ready to endorse the consolidation of the two largest humanitarian accounts—International Disaster Assistance (IDA) and Migration and Refugee Assistance (MRA)—into a single International Humanitarian Assistance account with significantly reduced funding.

Still, the president’s budget request would have advanced a more drastic overhaul, lowering overall humanitarian financing to $4 billion and eliminating in-kind food aid provided through Food for Peace Title II, while detailing conditions for crisis response more explicitly on alignment with US national interests. House appropriators provided more overall humanitarian aid than requested by the administration, while allocating less than requested for the flexible Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA) account, which offers considerable discretion to the president. The Committee also rejected the proposed elimination of in-kind food aid (funded through the Agriculture spending bill).

With no shortage of humanitarian needs globally, these accounts have been buoyed in recent years by supplemental and emergency appropriations. Use the toggle in the chart above to see recent trends with and without additional funds.

International financial institutions take funding hit in House bill absent authorizations

Contributions to international financial institutions were one of the few areas of US development spending less affected by the Trump administration’s proposed cuts. However, the House spending bill falls well short of even the administration’s request. In the case of some of the largest asks, which necessitate authorizations blessed by the House Financial Services Committee, lawmakers on the spending committee plead deference to their authorizing colleagues. Such is the case for the International Development Association, the World Bank’s concessional financing window for the poorest, the Asian Development Fund, along with capital increases at the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the private sector arm of the Inter-American Development Bank (IDB Invest). Likewise, approval for the IMF’s recent quota reform awaits a green light from authorizers.

The House Appropriations Committee-approved measure also would put the US behind in its contributions to a capital increase at the African Development Bank—approved during the first Trump administration—and entirely leaves out a contribution to its concessional window, the African Development Fund. The latter notably did not appear in the administration’s request, nor did any contribution for the International Fund for Agricultural Development. In line with the budget submitted to Congress by the White House, the House bill would provide $50 million in flexible funding for Treasury International Programs, which could be used to address evolving needs.

House bill recommends level funding for DFC, pending authorization

The Trump administration has been clear that it has big ambitions for the US International Development Finance Corporation. An area of continued frustration for DFC and its boosters alike has been the budget treatment of direct equity investments. To sidestep the equity scoring issue, the Trump administration has proposed creating a $3 billion revolving fund—an idea similar to one floated by the Biden White House. But, in the absence of legislation reauthorizing DFC or more clarity on the plans for the fund, House appropriators opted instead to maintain level funding for the agency. With the BUILD Act set to expire in early October, the clock is ticking to extend DFC’s current authority—and, hopefully, reach an agreement that paves the way for future equity deals while avoiding unnecessary pressure on the international affairs budget.

House committee preserves MCC budget

MCC has faced mounting budget pressure in recent years, weathering roughly $1 billion in total rescissions from fiscal years 2022–2024. But worries about the agency’s future grew more pronounced this spring, when reports surfaced that the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) was exploring options to shutter the agency entirely. While the Trump administration’s FY26 budget request didn’t call for MCC’s demise, it fueled uncertainty by proposing a minuscule budget paired with a deep ($1.2 billion) rescission. In contrast, House Appropriators would provide the agency with level funding and don’t propose clawing back any previously provided resources.

A continued push for enhanced effectiveness and innovation

Throughout both the bill text and accompanying report, there are signs that House Appropriators hope to see continued improvements in the US international assistance. Whether it's directed spending on impact evaluations or piloting milestone-based payment mechanisms, lawmakers signal they’re looking not to abandon ship but to take additional steps to deliver (and measure) results.

Ok, but now what?

What comes next seems as murky as ever—in terms of process and execution. Big operational questions loom, particularly when it comes to the State Department’s ability to manage procurements that were once the domain of USAID, particularly in the wake of so many terminated awards.

Meanwhile, talk of additional rescissions—including potential pocket rescissions targeting expiring funds in the waning days of the fiscal year—or even outright impoundment has some lawmakers questioning the feasibility of reaching a bipartisan spending agreement this fall.

In the meantime, we’ll be waiting to see how these accounts fare on the Senate side—and whether there’s hope of a bipartisan path forward.

Read the original post on the Center for Global Development's site.