The White House announced plans late Friday to claw back $810 million in congressionally appropriated funding, triggering sharp criticism from members of both chambers.
The controversial budget maneuver, known as a pocket rescission, allows a president to block funding by submitting a request so close to the fiscal year’s end that Congress cannot act in time.
Under the Impoundment Control Act, Congress has a 45-day window to consider any rescission request, but the administration’s timing left lawmakers with virtually no opportunity to respond.
With the current fiscal year set to expire Wednesday, the House remained out of session while the Senate prepared to adjourn in early October ahead of midterm campaigning.
The White House cited the Impoundment Control Act as the legal basis for its authority to pursue the clawback of the congressionally approved funds.
The Government Accountability Office has previously stated the ICA does not permit withholding proposed rescissions through expiration if Congress has not formally approved them.
Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine facing a competitive reelection race, joined Democrats in accusing the administration of undermining Congress’s power of the purse.
“We’re already looking at whether there’s language we can put in the next set of appropriations bills that would prohibit this from happening,” Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins told reporters Monday evening.
Collins added, “But it’s going to take some legal work,” signaling that any legislative remedy would require significant legal analysis before moving forward.
Trump employed the same pocket rescission tactic last year to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid, and the Supreme Court allowed the administration to withhold that funding until it expired.
In the months following that earlier maneuver, Democrats repeatedly attempted to use funding legislation to block similar late-stage clawbacks but failed to secure enough Republican support.
Republicans who are now expressing interest in curbing the president’s use of this tactic are also weighing what support they would need in both chambers to override a potential presidential veto.
The dynamic reflects the broader tension between a Congress that controls appropriations on paper and an executive branch increasingly willing to test the boundaries of spending authority.
Any bipartisan effort to restrict pocket rescissions faces a steep climb, requiring not only legislative agreement but also the kind of cross-aisle coordination that has proven elusive in recent years.
