White House Uses 'Pocket Rescission' to Cancel $810 Million in Funds

The White House said on Friday, Sept. 26, according to NBC News, that it would cancel $810 million in federal funding already approved by Congress, using a budget maneuver known as a "pocket rescission," ahead of the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. Several lawmakers, including Senator Susan Collins, called the move unlawful.¹²³⁴

How the maneuver works

A pocket rescission occurs when the executive branch tells Congress it will not spend appropriated money at a point in the fiscal year so late that the funds lapse before the usual 45-day review window Congress is given can be completed. The Office of Management and Budget submitted the rescission requests to House Speaker Mike Johnson, and President Trump signed a letter to Congress detailing the proposed cuts.¹²

According to Senator Collins, the timing shows that OMB "intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law." The administration has countered that following the 45-day process is impossible when the notice comes fewer than 45 days before the fiscal year's close, and it has pointed out that the House will not reconvene until after the November midterms.¹²

The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan watchdog, has determined that the Impoundment Control Act does not allow pocket rescissions and considers them illegal. The GAO has explained that when Congress lacks adequate time to review a rescission request or to spend the money before it lapses, the president effectively sidesteps Congress's constitutional control over federal spending.⁴⁵

Which programs are affected

NBC News reported that the proposed rescissions span agencies including Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice, along with International Assistance Programs, hitting initiatives that serve immigrants, minority communities and HHS-funded research. The White House has described the rejected funding as among the most harmful government spending, according to that reporting.¹

NBC News reported that the White House plans to withhold $547 million allocated for Refugee and Entrant Assistance through HHS, contending the program has more money than needed given the administration's border policies, in addition to $56 million for Housing Counseling Assistance and over $69 million earmarked for domestic international education and foreign language programs.¹

CBS News and Fox News reported overlapping but somewhat different figures: $567 million in cuts to HHS programs funding refugee and migrant services, $50 million for programs aiding immigrants and noncitizens, and $70 million targeting programs it Fox News described as "Woke International Education" grants and fellowships. Fox News also reported a planned $25 million reduction to programs educating migrant students, along with cuts to a Justice Department unit that works to ease racial conflict.³⁴

A repeated maneuver

This is the second time the Trump administration has used a pocket rescission, according to CBS News. The previous year, the administration deployed the identical tool to eliminate $4.9 billion earmarked for foreign aid, including $3.2 billion destined for USAID and $322 million from its State Democracy fund, marking the first such use since the Carter era nearly five decades before. Separately, lawmakers passed a rescissions package that July, trimming $9 billion from foreign aid and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.¹³⁴

In September 2025 the Supreme Court stayed a lower court injunction that would have required roughly $4 billion covered by the earlier rescission request to be obligated, allowing the funds to remain withheld while litigation continued. CBS News reported that the justices cited the president's authority in foreign affairs but stopped short of ruling definitively on whether pocket rescissions are lawful.¹²³

The Impoundment Control Act was passed in 1974 in response to President Richard Nixon's withholding of funds from programs he opposed. It gives Congress 45 legislative days to approve rescission requests before appropriated funds must be spent.¹²

Reaction on Capitol Hill

Collins, who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, remarked, "OMB is an agency of the executive branch." "It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding," adding that the rescission amounted to "a clear violation of the law." Senator Patty Murray described the move as "theft from the American people," stating, "Every Republican who voted for these bills should be furious, because Vought is saying their votes don't count." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer characterized the administration's action as unlawfully withholding close to $1 billion in essential funding, while Representative Rosa DeLauro said the administration was "once again trying to steal more money promised to communities across the country."¹²³

Law professor Zachary Price said of the underlying statute, "It's perverse to read that as, instead, creating this mechanism for unilaterally canceling funds," adding that the executive imposing a party-line view of spending undermines the basis on which Congress agrees to funding packages. Bobby Kogan of the Center for American Progress said the administration had "picked a bunch of things that they hate" and simply declined to spend on them, though he noted Congress could reappropriate funds it says were illegally withheld.²