White House Moves to Cancel More Than $800 Million in Congress-Approved Funding

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration is moving to rescind more than $800 million in federal funding approved by Congress, intensifying a constitutional dispute over presidential authority and lawmakers’ control of government spending.

 

 

 

5

The White House announced the move on September 25, describing it as a “pocket rescission” targeting programs the administration considers wasteful or harmful to American taxpayers.

Reuters reported that the package covers more than $800 million in spending involving immigration, education, race-related programs and other federal initiatives that Congress had previously approved.

The White House says the action is authorized under the Impoundment Control Act and represents another effort by Trump to reduce spending that his administration considers unnecessary.

The largest portion involves approximately $567 million from the Department of Health and Human Services, covering programs serving refugees, asylum seekers and other noncitizens.

The administration argues that changing immigration patterns have reduced the need for some of these programs, allowing previously allocated money to be rescinded before it expires.

Another $25 million targets Education Department programs supporting migrant students, while additional funding involves Justice Department community-relations programs and housing assistance initiatives.

The White House has also identified funding for international education, minority-owned businesses, environmental initiatives and selected health research programs as part of the broader package.

Administration officials argue that these programs do not sufficiently serve current national priorities and say the rescission will prevent taxpayer money from being spent on activities they oppose.

The dispute centers on Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending. Lawmakers approve appropriations, while the executive branch is generally responsible for administering funds according to laws enacted by Congress.

The unusual procedure being used by the White House is called a “pocket rescission.” It involves submitting cancellation requests so close to the end of the fiscal year that funds may expire before Congress can fully respond.

Under the Impoundment Control Act, Congress normally has 45 days to consider a presidential rescission proposal, according to the Government Accountability Office.

Because the federal fiscal year ends on September 30, lawmakers have very little time to respond to the latest package before the relevant funding period expires.

Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, criticized the administration’s action and argued that Congress had not been adequately consulted before receiving the rescission package.

Collins has argued that the maneuver improperly interferes with Congress’s constitutional “power of the purse,” while other lawmakers have raised similar concerns about executive authority.

Democratic appropriators have also opposed the move, saying the administration should not unilaterally determine which programs Congress has authorized should continue receiving funding.

The Government Accountability Office has previously concluded that pocket rescissions are not permitted under the Impoundment Control Act because they can effectively allow presidents to shorten the period during which appropriated funds remain available.

The legal dispute is complicated by a Supreme Court decision last year involving a separate Trump administration effort to withhold approximately $4.9 billion in foreign aid.

The Supreme Court allowed that earlier action to proceed while litigation continued, but its ruling did not definitively establish that the broader pocket-rescission strategy was lawful.

This year’s action is different because the funding primarily concerns domestic programs rather than foreign assistance, potentially creating new legal questions about the limits of presidential authority over congressional appropriations.

The White House says its latest action reflects an effort to eliminate spending it considers ineffective, while congressional critics argue that only Congress should determine whether already-approved appropriations are ultimately canceled.

The dispute could therefore move beyond Capitol Hill if lawmakers or affected organizations challenge the rescissions in court, potentially creating another test of the balance between executive and legislative budget authority.