The Administration’s FY26 International Budget Request & Rescissions

We have compiled the updates below update to help you track recent developments regarding US foreign assistance.

FY26 Budget Request

On May 30th, the administration released its Fiscal Year 2026 International Affairs budget request, more than a week after Secretary Rubio appeared on the Hill to discuss the topic. The request asks Congress to cut the top-line State and International Affairs budget (which funds both US diplomacy and international assistance) by more than half – from $62.7 billion in FY2024 down to $31.2 billion for FY2026. Beyond that topline cut, the administration indicates that it will seek additional rescissions and cancellations, such that the resulting FY26 request would amount to $9.6 billion, less than one-sixth the FY24 budget. Even granting the need for reform and cost-effective programs, it is hard to understand how an 84% cut could provide the resources necessary to address the global challenges facing the United States.

The request asks Congress to cut Global Health Programs by 62% from FY24 levels (from $10 billion down to $3.8 billion).

The request also proposes the creation of a new $2.9 billion “American First Opportunity Fund” (A1OF), a new pot of money that would grant the administration extremely broad flexibility in deciding how it is used. The administration then points to that $2.9 billion A1OF as a possible funding source for at least $19.2 billion in accounts and activities that it proposes to eliminate or reduce, including:

Development Assistance (DA) – eliminated; $10 billion in FY24
Contributions to International Organizations (CIO) – $1.3 billion cut from FY24 levels
Contributions to International Peacekeeping Activities (CIPA) – eliminated; $1.2 billion in FY24
Assistance for Europe, Eurasia, and Central Asia (AEECA) – eliminated; $770 million in FY24
Democracy Fund (DF) – eliminated; $345 million in FY24
Economic Support Fund (ESF) – eliminated; $3.9 billion in FY24
The Global Fund – no request; received $1.65 billion in FY24

The budget also proposes troubling cuts to smart, effective international investments that have earned consistent bipartisan support, including:

PEPFAR

The administration proposes a 38% reduction (from $4.7B down to $2.9B) in enacted funding for PEPFAR, one of the most successful aid programs in history, which has saved 26 million lives and enabled per capita GDP growth rates in PEPFAR countries that were 50% higher than they would have been without PEPFAR.
The US has laid the groundwork for moving countries to self-sufficiency, and PEPFAR’s latest strategy emphasizes local health systems and sustainability. But drastic US reductions without a sufficient transition period threaten to reverse progress, and could again lead to growing HIV infections, dangerous drug resistance, and millions of AIDS-related deaths by 2030.

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance

The FY26 request proposes, without explanation, to eliminate the current $300 million in annual US support to Gavi, a public-private partnership that immunizes millions of children and has been a model of smart, cost-effective U.S. assistance.
Gavi has a proven record of saving children’s lives, driving economic growth, building self-sufficiency (19 countries have already graduated), leveraging burden-sharing (the US has provided only 13% of Gavi’s lifetime funding), and generating a disproportionate return on US investment (in the past 5 years, Gavi has spent four times more in the US than the US has spent on Gavi).
Gavi has no unallocated cash in hand, contrary to the request’s claim that it “reports a reserve of over $7.0 billion” (an apparent reference to reserves reported in Gavi’s 2023 audited financial statement, which have since been committed and spent on Gavi programming through 2025).

The Global Fund

The budget request does not include a specific funding request for The Global Fund (which received $1.65 billion in FY24), a public-private partnership that coordinates and mobilizes international investments against HIV, tuberculosis, and malaria, which has enjoyed strong bipartisan support from its inception.
The request indicates that if the administration decides to fund the Global Fund (via the proposed new “American First Opportunity Fund”) they would limit US contributions to 20% of total Global Fund funding, rather than the 33% cap in the last enacted authorization bill.
Global Fund efforts have saved some 65 million lives since 2002, reducing tuberculosis deaths by 36% and deaths from malaria by 28%.

The Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)

The budget request expressly recognizes that “MCC is a good investment for the American people” that “makes America safer, stronger, and more prosperous by building large-scale infrastructure and securing strategic reforms in key countries that support U.S. businesses, counter malign influence, and enhance our national security.”
But then it proposes to cut MCC funding by more than 75% (from $930M down to $224M) and seeks $1.2B in rescission/cancellation of prior year funds. So cumulatively it requests $1.9 billion in cuts – more than two times MCC’s annual budget (of $930M a year).
Congress has not yet received basic information about MCC compacts and contracts the administration is proposing to cancel and why.

U.S. International Development Finance Corporation (DFC)

The administration requests a $196 million (34%) cut from FY25 enacted levels (from $571M down to $375M) for the DFC, which mobilizes private capital with a $50 billion portfolio of active investments that compete with China’s predatory lending practices in Africa and around the world.
The administration also proposes a $3 billion dollar mandatory equity revolving fund to expand the use of DFC’s equity tool for “strategic investments,” a potentially useful expansion of DFC’s capacity.

International Development Association (IDA)

The FY26 request includes $1.06 billion for IDA, a $320 million (23%) decrease from FY25.
IDA is the concessional lending arm of the World Bank that offers low interest loans and grants to low-income countries for investments in critical infrastructure, agriculture, and health systems.
Every $1 the US contributes catalyzes about $27 in additional IDA resources. Since 1960 over three dozen countries have graduated from being supported by IDA to becoming IDA donors.

African Development Fund (AfDF)

The request proposes, without explanation, to eliminate the $197 million in annual funding that the US provides to the African Development Fund, despite recognizing that US support to multilateral development banks is “an important alternative to coercive and non-transparent borrowing from China.”
The AfDF is the African Development Bank Group’s concessional loan and grant window for 37 low-income African countries, including fragile states. The AfDF invests in infrastructure, including energy access that drives economic growth while fostering country ownership and regional integration.
Every $1 in U.S. contributions to ADF-16 will catalyze nearly $16 in contributions from other donors and internally generated resources.

ONE Priority	FY24 Enacted	FY25 Enacted	FY26 PBR	% Change from FY25 Enacted
Development Assistance	$3,931,000,000	$3,931,000,000	$0	-100
Economic Support Funds	$3,890,400,000	$3,890,400,000	$0	-100
Global Fund	$1,650,000,000	$1,650,000,000	$0	-100
PEPFAR*	$4,725,000,000	$4,725,000,000	$2,900,000,000	-38
Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance	$300,000,000	$300,000,000	$0	-100
International Development Finance Corporation (DFC)	$571,450,000	$571,450,000	$375,200,000	-34
Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC)	$930,000,000	$930,000,000	$224,000,000	-76
World Bank, International Development Association (IDA)	$1,380,000,000	$1,380,000,000	$1,066,184,000	-23
African Development Fund (AfDF)	$197,000,000	$197,000,000	$0	-100

June 3rd Rescissions Request

Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress – not the President – exercises what is commonly known as the “power of the purse,” and makes funding decisions via the annual appropriations process. The President’s failure to spend appropriated funds is known as an “impoundment.” Under the Impoundment Control Act only two types of impoundments are legal: (1) deferrals, which are just a temporary delay of spending; and (2) rescissions, which are a formal request from the President to Congress, to cancel previously appropriated spending.

Under the Impoundment Control Act, Congress has 45 days to consider and pass a rescission request after the President submits it.  If it does not adopt the rescission within 45 days, then the President is supposed to spend those funds available for their originally appropriated purpose.

On June 3rd, the administration submitted a $9 billion rescissions request – a proposed cancellation of funds previously appropriated by Congress – that includes no specific details about the particular activities or awards the administration wants to cut. Among other things, it proposes $900 million in cuts to health and infectious disease programs, especially those focused on HIV/AIDS. It also asks Congress to cancel $2.5 billion (64%) of the Development Assistance it has already appropriated for FY25.

In the House, Speaker Johnson has indicated his intent to skip consideration by the Appropriations Committee and bring the proposal directly to the House floor for a vote as early as next week.

To protect its basic constitutional power of the purse, Congress must require far more detail and justification before agreeing to severe cuts to its prior funding decisions. This is especially the case for proposed cuts to effective, strongly bipartisan programs with proven records of success in saving lives and promoting international stability, such as those highlighted above.