Washington, D.C. · Saturday, September 26, 2026Independent civic journalism
The Washington Tribune
washingtontribune.com®

Top Story

White House Moves to Withhold More Than $800 Million Approved by Congress

President Trump is seeking to cancel funding for immigration, education, minority-business, and conservation programs through a rarely used “pocket rescission.” The move renews a constitutional dispute over whether an administration can prevent congressionally approved money from being spent without lawmakers’ consent.

A late move targets approved spending

President Donald Trump moved Friday to withhold more than $800 million that Congress approved for programs involving immigration, education, minority-business development, refugee assistance, and overseas conservation. The White House said the spending did not benefit American citizens and supported policies the administration opposes, including what it characterized as illegal immigration, racial division, and excessive environmental regulation.

The administration is relying on a rarely used maneuver known as a pocket rescission. It asks Congress to cancel spending close enough to the end of the fiscal year that the money may expire before lawmakers can reject the request and require its release. The practical effect can resemble a cancellation even though Congress has not agreed to remove the funds from the law.

The dispute centers on the power of the purse

The Constitution assigns Congress authority over federal appropriations. Presidents may recommend cuts and have some administrative discretion over how programs operate, but they generally cannot substitute their policy preferences for a spending decision enacted by lawmakers. The Impoundment Control Act established procedures for proposed rescissions after earlier presidents delayed or refused spending that Congress had ordered.

Under the normal procedure, a president sends Congress a rescission proposal and lawmakers decide whether to approve it. Funds may be paused for a limited period while Congress considers the request, but they ordinarily must be released if Congress does not act. A pocket rescission tests that system by using the calendar: if the request arrives just before an appropriation expires, there may be no meaningful opportunity to restore the spending.

Republican opposition complicates the strategy

Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the move illegal and said it undermined Congress's constitutional authority. Her criticism matters because the disagreement is not simply partisan. Appropriators in both parties have an institutional interest in preserving the force of spending laws and preventing the executive branch from choosing which provisions to honor.

The Supreme Court last year declined to immediately block a similar effort involving $4.9 billion in foreign aid while litigation continued. That decision did not necessarily resolve every legal question surrounding pocket rescissions, but it gave the administration room to test the tactic again. Courts may have to examine timing, statutory language, whether the money legally expired, and what remedy remains possible after a fiscal deadline passes.

Programs and future budgets face uncertainty

For organizations expecting grants, uncertainty can be damaging even before a court rules. Schools, refugee-service providers, business-development groups, and conservation partners may have hired staff, signed contracts, or planned services around an enacted budget. A delayed payment can force layoffs or cancellations, and money released only after prolonged litigation may arrive too late to accomplish the purpose Congress intended.

The immediate questions are whether lawmakers challenge the action, whether recipients seek emergency relief, and whether agencies obligate any of the money before the fiscal year closes. The longer-term stakes are larger than $800 million. If the maneuver survives, future presidents could use the same timing strategy against programs they dislike. That would shift practical control of appropriations toward the White House even when Congress has written a different policy into law.

← Back to the front page