The Trump Administration’s FY26 Skinny Budget Request

The ONE Campaign has compiled this update to help you track recent developments regarding US international assistance. Last updated May 6, 2025.

On May 2nd, the Trump Administration sent Congress its fiscal year 2026 “skinny budget” proposal, requesting severe cuts to international funding and a sharp shift in US global engagement.

The “skinny budget” is a preliminary budget outline submitted during the first months of a new administration, pending submission of a full budget request. It is basically a messaging document to begin funding negotiations with Congress. While the Constitution vests the appropriations power solely in Congress, the President is required by statute to submit a budget to Congress each year, which Congress may consider but is not required to adopt. As the Republican Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee observed last week, “the President is the President, but not the commander in chief of Congress.” The President’s request is due the first Monday in February, but that deadline is frequently missed, and there is no statutory consequence for delay. The Trump Administration’s full FY26 budget request is currently expected in late May.

The FY26 skinny budget request proposes an 83.7% cut from FY25 levels to State and International Programs, which fund both US diplomacy and international assistance. Because it does not include program-level detail or track funding by appropriations account, it is impossible to tell what the implications would be for specific programs. But it clearly signals a desire to slash foreign aid – cutting global health funding by two-thirds (a $6.2 billion reduction) and nearly eliminating development assistance ($8.3 billion cut from the current funding of $8.9 billion). $2.8 billion would be shifted to provide an increase for the Development Finance Corporation (DFC), and $2.9 billion would go to a new “America First Opportunity Fund,” essentially an unrestricted pot of money that the Administration could use to fund emerging priorities.

The request includes no program-level information, making it unclear how successful lifesaving investments like PEPFAR, the Global Fund, or Gavi would be affected. While it states that PEPFAR funding will be “preserved for any current beneficiaries,” it provides no details on what that means, and it would be impossible to continue current PEPFAR funding with the cuts it proposes. The proposal does include $3.2 billion over three years ($1.07B per year) for the International Development Association (IDA)— lower than current levels ($1.38B per year) but unexpectedly strong funding, given the broader cuts.

In response to the budget request, ONE issued a public statement noting that “the cuts in the Administration’s budget proposal threaten lives and stability around the world” and “urg[ing] Congress to protect funding for foreign assistance programs that have proven effective and efficient.” ONE and its constituent advocates across the nation have asked Congress to sustain funding for six critical assistance investments with records of proven success: PEPFAR, Gavi, The Global Fund, the US Development Finance Corporation (DFC), the Millennium Challenge Corporation (MCC), and the International Development Association (IDA).

Most of the congressional reaction to the skinny budget focused on proposed cuts to domestic programs and flat defense spending, with key Republicans, including Senate Armed Services Chairman Wicker (R-MS), urging the administration to invest in “peace through strength.” Sen. McConnell (R-KY) lamented the administration’s unwillingness to invest “in the national defense or in other critical instruments of national power.”

Top Democrat appropriators specifically called out the international funding cuts. Sen. Murray (D-WA) noted that the proposal “guts funding for the State Department and America’s international security, economic, and humanitarian assistance programs.” Rep. DeLauro (D-CT) stated that it “create[s] a slush fund for the President while abandoning our partners and allies around the world with an 84% percent cut to diplomats and development experts working to solve global challenges such as hunger, clean water, and conflict resolution.” Sen. Schatz (D-HI) stated “The president’s budget proposal is simply that – a proposal.  It’s not going to happen.”

How Congress considers the administration’s skinny budget in its spending decisions will become clear only as the appropriations process unfolds in the weeks ahead.