Which government programs or deals under Trump resulted in billions flowing to Israel, Ukraine, or other nations?
Executive summary
The available reporting shows multiple Trump administration actions moved—or tried to move—billions in U.S. foreign assistance toward or away from foreign partners: a pocket rescission and freezes sought to cancel roughly $4.9–$5.0 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid [1] [2] [3], while separate emergency and executive-authority actions fast‑tracked weapons and reconstruction commitments to Israel and a multibillion Ukraine reconstruction pledge in the administration’s peace framework [4] [5]. Courts and advocates have forced partial releases and back payments totaling more than $1 billion in some cases, and litigation over billions in appropriations remains active [6] [7].
1. A dramatic attempt to claw back $4.9–$5.0 billion in congressional aid
In late August 2025 the White House used a rare “pocket rescission” maneuver to announce the unilateral cancellation or withholding of roughly $4.9–$5.0 billion in foreign‑aid funds that Congress had approved, aiming at programs including USAID grants, health and HIV/AIDS funding and UN peacekeeping support [1] [2] [3]. News outlets including Reuters and the AP reported the figure as $4.9 billion and described the move as an unprecedented end‑of‑year attempt to let appropriated money lapse without Congressional action [1] [2]. The White House defended the action as cutting “woke, weaponized, and wasteful” spending [3].
2. Courts, litigants and partial rollbacks changed the calculus
Judges pushed back. Litigation brought by foreign‑aid groups and others produced orders requiring the administration to release some funds and to make back payments; court filings show the government began paying out contracts and surpassed $1 billion in back payments in response to judicial rulings [6]. Separately, the Supreme Court grappled with whether the executive could continue blocking billions and at one point allowed continued withholding while litigation proceeded [7] [8]. The dispute has left tens of billions in broader foreign‑aid budgets vulnerable to administrative action even as courts decide specific obligations [6] [7].
3. Big new commitments to Israel flowed under emergency authority
While the administration moved to cut or re‑direct many traditional development and humanitarian accounts, it simultaneously approved large weapons packages to Israel. Reporting indicates that on March 1 the administration approved $4 billion in new weapons sales to Israel under emergency authorities that bypassed routine Congressional review [4]. Commentators treated that as an example of aid and military financing that the White House prioritized even as other aid lines were frozen [4].
4. Ukraine: reconstruction promises in a contested peace framework
The Trump administration’s diplomatic push toward a negotiated end to the Russia‑Ukraine war included commitments — in the administration’s draft plan and related reporting — for “billions of dollars” for Ukraine’s reconstruction, and contingent security guarantees and emergency blueprints involving other partners [5]. Reporting makes clear, however, that these reconstruction commitments are tied to a political peace framework that U.S. lawmakers, European allies, and Ukrainian officials have treated skeptically or as potentially favorable to Russian positions [5] [9] [10].
5. Contradiction in policy: cuts to USAID and targeted large bailouts
Analysts and opinion writers highlight a pattern: sweeping cuts to traditional development and humanitarian programs (including reported terminations totaling nearly $13 billion and severe reductions at USAID) coexist with massive targeted interventions — for example, a reported $20 billion (and up to $40 billion discussed in commentary) rescue package for Argentina and multibillion pledges tied to geopolitically prioritized partners [11] [12]. Critics argue that the choices reveal political and strategic priorities rather than consistent austerity [12] [11].
6. Competing viewpoints and the political stakes
The White House framed rescissions as fiscal discipline and a re‑alignment of aid to “America First” priorities [3]. Opponents — foreign‑aid groups, humanitarian organizations and many Democrats — argue the cuts imperil lifesaving programs and breach Congress’s appropriation power [13] [6]. Courts and some Republican legislators have pushed back or sought partial remedies, illustrating a separation‑of‑powers clash over who controls foreign appropriations [6] [7].
7. What the available sources do not say
Available sources do not provide a comprehensive, line‑by‑line accounting of every transfer of “billions” to specific nations beyond the items above; they do not, in the documents supplied, show a full audited list tying every dollar from the rescission or executive decisions to particular country recipients beyond the Israel weapons package, the Ukraine reconstruction pledges in the peace plan, and broadly described USAID and health program funds [4] [5] [1]. Detailed beneficiary‑by‑beneficiary flowcharts are not found in current reporting provided here.
Conclusion: The public record provided shows two running threads: aggressive executive moves to withhold or rescind roughly $4.9–$5.0 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid and simultaneous, high‑profile multibillion commitments to politically prioritized partners such as Israel and to proposed reconstruction packages for Ukraine — all amid active litigation and bipartisan political dispute over presidential authority versus Congress’s power of the purse [1] [2] [4] [5] [6].