Skip to content

The White House announced Friday evening that President Trump intends to rescind approximately $800 million in FY 2026 congressionally appropriated funding, invoking authorities under the Congressional Impoundment Control Act. The targeted funding includes programs supporting immigration services, foreign aid, education, health research, and assistance for minority-owned businesses. 

The move involves a relatively untested budget maneuver known as a “pocket rescission,” which could allow an administration to prevent appropriated funds from being spent without obtaining affirmative congressional approval. Under the Congressional Impoundment Control Act, a rescission message from the President triggers a 45-day period during which Congress can approve the proposed rescission in whole or in part. If Congress does not act within that period, the funds generally remain available, and the administration is not authorized to reduce the spending authority simply by declining to spend the money.

The timing of the latest action, however, is significant. Because the rescission request was submitted less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, the administration could potentially allow the spending authority to expire at the end of the fiscal year without actually disbursing the funds. Under this approach, Congress would need to take affirmative action to reject the rescission or otherwise preserve the spending authority rather than simply allowing the 45-day period to expire.

The strategy has already drawn significant legal and congressional scrutiny. Critics argue that a pocket rescission could effectively circumvent Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. Some legal experts have characterized the approach as potentially amounting to an unconstitutional line-item veto, although the legality of the strategy has not been definitively resolved by the courts.

Sen. Collins (R-ME), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, immediately criticized the administration’s action as illegal. Senate Democrats also oppose the move, while pointing to their earlier effort to include language in the recent government funding legislation that would have prevented the administration from pursuing the strategy. Republicans rejected that provision during negotiations.

The dispute is also likely to have consequences beyond the targeted FY 2026 funding. The administration’s action could further complicate negotiations over FY 2027 appropriations when Congress returns in November, particularly as lawmakers debate the scope of presidential authority over funds that Congress has already approved.

The episode represents another significant test of the balance between Congressional appropriations authority and presidential control over federal spending, with the courts potentially being asked to resolve the underlying constitutional questions.