White House Moves to Cancel $810 Million in Approved Spending
President Donald Trump moved Friday to cancel $810 million in spending that Congress had already approved, invoking a rarely used and legally contested maneuver known as a "pocket rescission." The White House announced the action just five days before the fiscal year ends on September 30, leaving lawmakers with virtually no time to respond before the funds expire.
The cuts target a range of programs, with the largest share—$567 million—coming from Department of Health and Human Services funds for refugees, asylees, and unaccompanied minors. An additional $50 million would be rescinded from other immigrant and noncitizen aid programs at HHS, according to the White House. The package also includes $70 million in what the administration labeled "Woke International Education" grants and fellowships, $56 million in Department of Housing and Urban Development programs, and smaller cuts to Department of Justice and Department of Education initiatives focused on migrant students and minority entrepreneurs.
The Office of Management and Budget described the targeted funding as "the most harmful government spending." In a statement, the White House said, "President Trump is committed to utilizing all possible tools to cut wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens." The administration also argued that the funds are no longer necessary because illegal border crossings have decreased significantly. A White House news release further noted that some organizations affected by the cuts are led by former Obama administration officials.
How the Pocket Rescission Works—and Why It's Controversial
A pocket rescission exploits a loophole in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Under that law, when a president proposes canceling budget authority, Congress has 45 legislative days to approve or reject the request. But if the president submits the proposal fewer than 45 days before the fiscal year ends, the funds can effectively be withheld until they expire—without Congress ever taking a vote.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act. The independent agency has stated that the tactic violates the constitutional separation of powers by circumventing Congress's authority over federal spending.
This is the second time the Trump administration has employed the maneuver. Last year, it used a pocket rescission to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid funds that Congress had approved—the first such use since 1977, during the Carter administration. The latest action escalates an ongoing battle over presidential power and the limits of executive impoundment.
Lawmakers on Both Sides Cry Foul
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, sharply criticized the administration's move, calling it "unlawful" and a "usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers." In a statement, she said Congress received the $810 million package "without warning or consultation" and accused OMB of intentionally withholding the funds for months to execute what she described as an illegal cancellation of bipartisan appropriations.
"Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers," Collins wrote. "OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding."
Collins, who is running for reelection this year, has been a frequent critic of pocket rescissions. The GAO has called the tactic illegal, she noted, adding, "Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law. I will work with my colleagues to address these illegal actions."
Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, called the move a "theft from the American people" and directed blame at OMB Director Russ Vought. "Russ Vought's message to Congress is that your votes don't count, and your laws are optional," Murray said. "It is now time for my Republican colleagues who said they would never let this happen to stand up and join us to stop this, and remind this administration this is not how our government works."
Rep. Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the administration is "once again trying to steal more money promised to communities across the country." The criticism from Collins and other Republicans underscores the unusual bipartisan nature of the backlash, as lawmakers from both parties defend Congress's constitutional power of the purse.
Budgetary Fallout and Political Timing
The timing of the rescission is particularly fraught. The fiscal year ends September 30, and the House is not scheduled to return until after the midterm elections in November. That means Congress cannot formally challenge the action before the funds expire. The 45-day review period mandated by the Impoundment Control Act becomes moot when the proposal arrives so close to the end of the fiscal year.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins noted that OMB appeared to have deliberately waited until the last moment. "This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations," she said. The administration's argument—that the law provides no way to follow the 45-day protocol if the action occurs less than 45 days before the fiscal year ends—has been challenged in court and criticized by legal experts.
The cuts span several agencies and programs. HHS accounts for the bulk of the reductions, including the $567 million for refugee and asylee services. The Department of Education would lose $25 million for migrant student programs. The Department of Justice would see cuts to an office focused on reducing racial tensions. HUD would lose $56 million in housing counseling services. The Department of Homeland Security would lose $15 million from Biden-era programs that the administration says provided welfare to undocumented immigrants.
The White House framed the cuts as targeting "outright harmful and blatantly ideological" grants. But critics argue that the programs were approved through regular order and signed into law, making the unilateral cancellation an attack on the legislative process itself.
A Broader Pattern of Executive Overreach
The pocket rescission is the latest in a series of moves by the Trump administration to reshape federal spending without congressional approval. Since returning to office last year, the president has sought to cancel funding for programs that do not align with his policy priorities, drawing multiple lawsuits and condemnation from lawmakers in both parties.
The administration's use of pocket rescissions could prompt fresh legal challenges. The GAO's determination that the tactic is unlawful provides a foundation for lawsuits arguing that the president has violated the Impoundment Control Act. However, the practical effect of the rescission—the funds will expire before Congress can act—may make it difficult for opponents to secure timely relief.
Collins's decision to publicly rebuke the administration is notable given her role as a senior Republican and her competitive reelection bid. Her statement that she will work to address "these illegal actions" signals that the fight over spending authority is far from over, even as the funds themselves lapse. The episode also raises questions about whether Congress will take legislative action to close the pocket rescission loophole—a step that would require bipartisan support and presidential approval.
For now, the administration's move stands, and the affected programs face an uncertain future. The broader implications for the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches will likely play out in the courts and in the November midterms, where the president's approval rating has already fallen to 29% as voters weigh in on his handling of the economy and governance.
Comments