President Trump has canceled nearly $1 billion in spending approved by Congress, according to the White House, which announced the move late Friday. The action uses a decades-old legal tool called a “pocket rescission,” a move that some lawmakers say violates federal law.
The administration is rescinding $567 million in refugee, asylee and migrant services through the Department of Health and Human Services, along with $50 million for immigrant and noncitizen aid programs, $70 million in “Woke International Education” grants and fellowships, and $56 million in Housing and Urban Development programs. The total amount canceled is nearly $1 billion.
Trump is committed to utilizing all possible tools to cut wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens, the White House said.
The White House’s Case for Pocket Rescission
The White House described the move as the second use of a pocket rescission. The first came last year, when the administration canceled $4.9 billion in foreign aid funds.
The administration’s argument is simple: the president has the authority to redirect funds he believes are not being spent effectively. The Impoundment Control Act allows the president to propose rescissions, which Congress has 45 legislative days to approve. If Congress does not act within that window, the rescission takes effect automatically.
“President Trump is ‘committed to utilizing all possible tools to cut wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens.'”
The White House framed the move as a continuation of that effort. The funds targeted include refugee and asylee services, immigrant and noncitizen aid, and education grants with the “Woke” label attached to them.
Collins’s Response: Unlawful and Without Warning
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the move “unlawful.”
Collins said lawmakers were told of $810 million in pocket rescissions “without warning or consultation.” She added that OMB “intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations.”
Collins cited the Government Accountability Office, which she said has questioned the legality of pocket rescissions. She argued that the administration’s actions violate the Impoundment Control Act.
The last pocket rescission was in 1977, during the Carter administration. That history matters because it shows how rarely this tool has been used. Its revival now suggests the administration sees a path to cutting spending without waiting for Congress to agree.
DeLauro’s Criticism From the Other Side
Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn. and top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, took a different approach. She called the administration “trying to steal more money promised to communities across the country.”
DeLauro’s framing puts the dispute in stark terms. The administration sees unused funds as waste; lawmakers see them as commitments that should not be broken.
The disagreement is not abstract. The $1 billion in canceled funds represents real programs that were approved by Congress and now face elimination.
What the Law Actually Says
The Impoundment Control Act was passed in response to President Nixon’s practice of refusing to spend money that Congress had appropriated. Under the act, the president can propose rescissions, but Congress must act within 45 legislative days. If Congress does not approve the rescission, the funds remain available for spending.
The administration’s use of pocket rescission tests that boundary. By canceling funds unilaterally, the White House is asserting that the president can redirect money without congressional approval.
Last Year’s Test Case
Last year’s pocket rescissions faced a legal challenge from groups receiving foreign aid funding. The Supreme Court allowed the cancellations to proceed, pointing to the president’s power to oversee foreign relations.
That decision does not settle the current dispute. The Supreme Court’s reasoning applied specifically to foreign aid. The current rescissions target programs that were approved by Congress and now face elimination.
The administration appears to be betting that the precedent holds. Lawmakers appear to be betting that the legal test will come again.
What Happens Next
Fiscal year ends Wednesday. The administration’s move is effective immediately, though Congress could still step in before the end of the year.
The 45-day clock starts running now. If Congress does not act, the rescissions take effect automatically.
The broader question is whether this becomes a pattern. The administration has used pocket rescission twice.
Sen. Collins has already vowed to fight the move.
The White House statement released Friday focused on the commitment to cutting spending.
The Paper’s View on Executive Power
The White House says it can cancel funds through a “pocket rescission” without Congress approving it. Lawmakers say that violates the Impoundment Control Act, which requires Congress to approve such rescissions within 45 days.
This is a direct conflict between the president’s power to oversee spending and Congress’s power to control it. The administration is testing that boundary repeatedly.
The paper’s principles favor a light touch on executive power and respect for the legislative branch. The administration’s position is the one the paper opposes here.
The dispute is likely to play out in the coming weeks. Congress returns from recess soon, and lawmakers will have the chance to respond.
For now, the administration has acted. Whether Congress agrees remains to be seen.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs the administration’s use of pocket rescission to cancel spending and is against lawmakers who argue it violates federal law, since the law is an old one written by a distant government, and Washington’s hand should not reach into the pockets of citizens. The administration is using a decades-old tool to redirect funds it deems wasted, and the law that some lawmakers cite was itself a reaction to presidential overreach.
Pocket rescission gives the president authority to propose cuts, and Congress has 45 days to reject them. If Congress fails to act, the rescission takes effect automatically. That is a check on executive power, not a grant of it.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn., are each making arguments about the same $1 billion in canceled funds, and the paper sides with the administration’s use of pocket rescission. Collins cites the Government Accountability Office’s questions about the legality of the move, while DeLauro calls the administration’s actions theft of money promised to communities. Both lawmakers are right that the administration is testing the boundaries of executive power, but the paper believes the president’s hands should stay out of citizens’ pockets, and the administration’s position is the one the paper supports here.
See the video the story is built around at CBS News.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.