Trump Moves to Cancel $1 Billion in Spending With Rare “Pocket Rescission” as Congress Cries Foul

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump signed off on a sweeping use of the little-known “pocket rescission” maneuver on Friday, September 26, 2026, effectively canceling nearly $1 billion in congressionally approved federal spending just days before the close of the fiscal year — bypassing lawmakers entirely and reigniting a furious constitutional clash over who controls the nation’s purse strings.

The Office of Management and Budget announced the move late Friday afternoon, framing the cuts as the elimination of “wasteful and harmful” government programs that no longer reflect the administration’s priorities. The targeted funding includes $567 million earmarked for the Department of Health and Human Services covering services for refugees, asylum seekers, and unaccompanied minors, as well as $70 million in international education grants and fellowships and $56 million in Housing and Urban Development programs. Additional cuts fall on diversity-focused initiatives the administration has labeled ideological spending.

The tactic works by exploiting a legal gray zone in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which requires the president to notify Congress before rescinding any appropriated funds and grants lawmakers a 45-day window to respond. By submitting the notification just five days before the September 30 end-of-fiscal-year deadline, the administration ensures that the review window expires at the same moment the funds lapse — effectively denying Congress any meaningful ability to act.

The reaction from Capitol Hill was swift and unusually bipartisan. Senate Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins (R-ME) publicly rebuked the White House, calling the move an action taken “without warning or consultation” and condemning it as an illegal end-run around Congress’s constitutional authority. “The power of the purse belongs to Congress — not the White House,” Collins said in a statement Friday evening.

The Government Accountability Office has previously declared similar tactics to be illegal, arguing that the President cannot selectively withhold funds appropriated by Congress without express legislative approval. Legal analysts noted that this 2026 action differs critically from the administration’s first use of the maneuver in 2025, which involved $4.9 billion in foreign aid rescissions. When that earlier case reached the Supreme Court, justices declined to block the cuts, citing the President’s broad authority over foreign affairs — a rationale that does not straightforwardly extend to domestic spending.

“The legal landscape shifts considerably when you move from foreign aid to domestic programs,” said one constitutional law scholar at Georgetown University Law Center. “The administration is testing whether the same doctrine can hold, and it very well may face a different judicial result.”

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the decision Friday, arguing that the administration is fulfilling its mandate to root out government excess. “These are taxpayer dollars being spent on programs that do not serve the American people,” she told reporters. “The president has the authority, and the obligation, to stop the bleeding.”

Democratic lawmakers immediately announced plans to seek emergency judicial relief to block the cuts from taking effect. Several Senate Democrats have already contacted the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel demanding a formal legal opinion on the maneuver’s constitutionality. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries called the move “a direct attack on the constitutional order” and pledged that Democrats would pursue “every legal remedy available” to reverse the decision.

The standoff arrives with just 38 days remaining before the November 3 midterm elections, adding intense political stakes to what is already a combustible constitutional debate. Federal court filings were expected as early as Monday, with plaintiffs expected to include immigration advocacy groups, refugee resettlement organizations, and at least two Democratic-led state attorneys general.

The move builds on a broader pattern of executive fiscal aggression from this administration. Federal courts have previously pushed back against administration actions that test the boundaries of executive discretion over congressionally appropriated resources. Administration officials have consistently argued, however, that the president retains inherent authority to direct federal resources in alignment with national policy priorities.

Whether the courts agree — and whether they can act before the September 30 fiscal deadline — may determine whether nearly a billion dollars in congressionally mandated spending quietly disappears into the void by the end of next week.