The White House has told Congress it no longer wants nearly $800 million in funds that had already been approved. The move, announced Friday evening, targets a wide range of government programs and relies on a law few presidents have touched.
The president is asking Congress to cancel the money through a process known as pocket rescission. That process involves the president requesting Congress cancel funds as the fiscal year approaches, giving lawmakers 45 days to respond.
The administration says the move is allowed under the Impoundment Control Act. Critics say it is an end run around Congress’s spending authority.
What Was Rescinded
The White House announcement covers four departments and amounts to over $800 million in total. The largest share, $567 million, lands at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The administration’s stated reason for the HHS cuts is broad. It cites “pro-illegal immigration programs and Non-Governmental Organizations that provided services to refugees, asylees, and other non-citizens and put unaccompanied children in harm’s way.”
The remaining cuts hit the Department of Education, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Department of Justice.
The Law Behind It
Pocket rescissions are rare. The last major use came in 2025, when the administration used a similar maneuver to claw back billions in funds for foreign aid programs.
That earlier move drew immediate pushback. A lower court ordered those 2025 funds to be obligated, but the Supreme Court stepped in last September and stayed the order. The court made clear the stay was not a final decision on the merits, noting it “should not be read as a final determination on the merits.”
The Government Accountability Office, known as the GAO, has raised concerns about the practice. The GAO notes that when insufficient time is given to consider such requests, the president is bypassing congressional authority over funding.
Collins Pushes Back
Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican from Maine who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, responded quickly. She called the move an attempt to “undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse” and a violation of the law.
Collins cited the GAO’s conclusion that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act. She also alleged that OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, “intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law.”
She added that OMB, an executive branch agency, “does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.” Collins vowed to “work with my colleagues to address these illegal actions.”
The 2025 precedent is not settled law. The Supreme Court stayed the order but did not resolve it. The current move could test the same boundaries again.
The administration’s position rests on a narrow reading of the Impoundment Control Act. The facts are simple. The White House asked for the money back. Congress has 45 days to say yes or no. And Collins has made clear she believes the whole thing is illegal.
This is a fight about who controls the nation’s purse. The president says he can return unused funds. Collins says that power is not his to exercise. The law, as interpreted by the GAO, supports her.
The coming weeks will show whether Congress agrees.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs Congress’s spending authority and is against the president’s use of pocket rescission to cancel funds. This is not a matter of party loyalty; it is a matter of who holds the nation’s purse. When the president asks Congress to cancel money already approved, he is not simply returning unused funds. He is exercising a power that belongs to another branch.
Collins is right to call the move an attempt to undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse. The GAO has said pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act. The Supreme Court’s stay in the 2025 case was not a final decision on the merits, and the administration’s reliance on that narrow reading is questionable.
What the reader should watch for is whether Congress responds with force. Collins has vowed to work with her colleagues to address these illegal actions. The coming weeks will show whether the Senate Appropriations Committee acts on its own authority or lets the president’s request pass without challenge.
Key Facts Box
- Total rescinded: Over $800 million
- Largest share: $567 million at HHS
- Targeted departments: HHS, Education, Housing & Urban Development, Justice
- Previous precedent: 2025 foreign aid rescissions
- Response window: 45 days
- Cited law: Impoundment Control Act
- GAO position: Pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Act
The fight is just beginning. Collins has vowed to address these illegal actions. Whether this becomes a broader constitutional fight depends on how Congress responds in the coming weeks.
Source material: “White House orders over $800M in funds rescinded,” ABC 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.