Trump’s administration has clawed back nearly $1 billion in spending that Congress approved, using a rarely used power that Sen. Susan Collins called an attack on the Constitution.
Late Friday night, the White House announced it had canceled nearly $1 billion in spending that lawmakers had approved. The cuts targeted several health programs serving immigrant and diverse communities, including a study on barriers to primary care among people of color, a project on racism in emergency medicine, and money to improve access to transgender care for youth of color in rural areas. The administration used a “pocket rescission” to do it — a move the AP described as a “rare and contested power.”
The Office of Management and Budget said the cuts focused on “the most harmful government spending.” Collins disagreed. She pushed back, calling the rescission another attempt by OMB to “undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.”
What a Pocket Rescission Is
A pocket rescission is a rarely used power. It allows the executive branch to cancel spending that Congress has approved without new legislation.
The AP described it as a “rare and contested power,” meaning it is a tool that has drawn pushback in the past. It is not a standard budget cut. It is a legal maneuver that changes what Congress has already decided.
In this case, the administration canceled nearly $1 billion in approved spending using that authority. The funds were returned to the Treasury rather than let flow to the health programs that had been promised.
The Programs Cut From the Funding
The cuts hit specific health programs serving immigrant and diverse communities. The administration cited these programs as examples of spending it considered unnecessary.
The study on barriers to primary care among people of color looked at how race and ethnicity affect access to basic health services. The project on racism in emergency medicine examined how bias affects treatment in urgent care settings. The transgender care funding was aimed at improving access to care for young people of color living in rural areas.
Each of these programs was approved by Congress. Each was then canceled by the administration using the pocket rescission authority.
“Another attempt by OMB to undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.”
That is what Collins said about the move. She framed the administration’s action as a direct challenge to the Constitution. She is a Republican senator from Maine, and she is now openly criticizing the White House over how it handles federal dollars.
Why This Authority Is Contested
The power to rescind spending is not new, but it is rarely used. When it is used, it raises questions about who controls the federal budget.
Congress holds the purse strings under the Constitution. It approves spending, and it is supposed to be the final word on how taxpayer money is spent. A pocket rescission allows the executive branch to override that decision unilaterally.
The administration argues that this is about efficiency. It says the cuts target “the most harmful government spending.” That is a subjective claim, and it is one the administration has to defend.
Collins disagrees. She sees the move as an attempt to weaken Congress’s ability to allocate funds. She is concerned that the administration is using a legal gray area to sidestep the legislative process.
The Practical Effect on Health Care
The cuts will affect real health programs. Primary care research, emergency medicine projects, and transgender youth care all lost funding that had been approved by lawmakers.
The administration has not explained how the cuts will be implemented or what services might be reduced as a result. What is clear is that the administration has decided to return nearly $1 billion in approved spending to the Treasury. That is a significant sum.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs neither side here; it backs Congress’s power to approve spending and the administration’s obligation to spend what it approves, not claw back funds through an executive power the paper regards as rare and contested. The administration has used a pocket rescission to cancel nearly $1 billion in spending Congress approved, and the paper considers that power a contested one that should be used rarely if ever.
The administration’s claim that it is cutting “the most harmful government spending” rests on a subjective judgment that belongs to elected representatives, not to an executive office. The paper supports Collins’s objection to the move as an attack on the Constitution’s division of powers.
Readers should watch for whether the administration continues to use this authority without clear limits. The paper will track whether Congress pushes back further, including whether lawmakers introduce measures to constrain the administration’s ability to cancel approved spending. The paper also watches for how the affected health programs respond to the cuts, particularly those serving immigrant and diverse communities.
Key Facts Box
- Nearly $1 billion in spending clawed back
- Late Friday night announcement
- Pocket rescission authority used
- Programs cut include primary care study, racism-in-emergency-medicine project, and transgender youth care funding
- Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) criticized the move
- OMB cited “the most harmful government spending” as justification
The administration has used a rarely used power to cut nearly $1 billion from health programs. Congress approved that spending. The administration canceled it anyway. Collins called it an attack on the Constitution.
This is a fight over who controls the federal budget. The administration says it can act on its own. Congress says that is not how it works. The disagreement is likely to continue.
Source material: “Trump uses ‘contested’ power to cut more funding to HHS,” STAT.
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.