Congress Pushes Back as Trump Moves to Cancel $810 Million in Federal Funding

The Trump administration is moving to cancel approximately $810 million in federal funding approved by Congress, triggering bipartisan objections over presidential authority and control of government spending.

The proposed cuts were announced late Friday, September 25, just days before the federal fiscal year ended, leaving lawmakers little practical time to review or reject the administration's request.

The White House described the action as an effort to eliminate spending it considers wasteful or harmful, while congressional appropriators from both parties questioned the legality of the unusual maneuver.

The largest portion involves approximately $567 million from Health and Human Services programs administered through the Office of Refugee Resettlement, according to congressional budget documents reported by multiple outlets.

Administration officials argued that reduced illegal border crossings mean some previously approved funding for refugee and migrant-related services is no longer necessary.

Another $25 million would be withdrawn from an Education Department program supporting migrant students, while approximately $70 million would affect international education grants and fellowships.

Additional reductions include roughly $28 million in health research funding and $56 million connected to housing counseling programs administered through the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

The administration has characterized several targeted programs as duplicative, wasteful or connected to diversity-focused initiatives, framing the rescission package as part of its broader effort to reduce federal spending.

Congressional appropriators, however, argue that the president cannot simply cancel money lawmakers previously approved and enacted into law without allowing Congress to formally act.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, said lawmakers were examining legislative options to prevent similar “pocket rescissions” from being used again.

Democratic appropriators have also condemned the move, arguing that the administration intentionally withheld funds before attempting to cancel them as the fiscal year approached its expiration.

The dispute centers on the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which established procedures governing presidential requests to rescind money that Congress has already appropriated.

Normally, a presidential rescission request gives Congress 45 days to consider whether the funding should actually be canceled, allowing lawmakers to approve, reject or modify the proposal.

The unusual timing of Trump's latest request created a different situation because the fiscal year was scheduled to end before Congress could realistically complete the review process.

The Government Accountability Office reinforced congressional concerns Tuesday, saying the president cannot force appropriated funding to expire by withholding it until the end of the fiscal year.

GAO said allowing appropriated money to disappear without congressional action would undermine the constitutional spending authority granted to Congress, setting up another potential confrontation over executive power.

White House budget director Russ Vought rejected the GAO's interpretation, arguing that the agency's legal conclusions have become politically motivated and that the administration's interpretation remains defensible.

The dispute could ultimately move into federal court, particularly because Senate Majority Leader John Thune has indicated that litigation may be necessary to settle the legal questions surrounding pocket rescissions.

The administration previously employed a similar strategy to cancel billions of dollars in foreign aid, a move that reached the Supreme Court but did not produce a definitive ruling on pocket rescissions generally.

The latest fight therefore extends beyond the $810 million itself, raising broader questions about whether future presidents could use similar timing strategies to reclaim congressionally approved money without obtaining explicit legislative approval.