Trump Administration Moves to Cancel $810 Million in Congress-Approved Spending Through a 'Pocket Rescission' Sent Five Days Before the Fiscal Year Ends; Sen. Collins, Citing GAO, Calls It Unlawful
The White House budget office sent Congress 11 spending cuts on Sept. 25, most aimed at HHS services for refugees and other noncitizens; it says a 1974 budget law allows the move, while the Government Accountability Office has said such late requests are illegal.
A Five-Day Window, and Who Gets to Use It
On September 25, 2026, the White House budget office sent Congress a list of 11 spending cuts worth about $810 million[1][10]. The fiscal year ends September 30. That gap, five days, is the whole story.
Here's the mechanism. A 1974 law lets a president ask Congress to cancel money it already approved. Congress then has 45 days to vote yes. If Congress does nothing, the law says the money has to go out the door anyway[7][6]. But there's a catch the law doesn't address directly: most of this money is one-year funding that simply expires when the fiscal year ends. Send the request late enough, and the 45-day clock runs out past September 30 regardless of what Congress does. The money lapses before anyone votes. Budget watchers call this a "pocket rescission," a nod to a president pocketing a bill instead of vetoing it[1][6].
The White House Office of Management and Budget, run by Director Russell Vought, says the statute never actually says when a rescission request has to be sent — so a late one is legal[1][2]. The Government Accountability Office, Congress's own watchdog, has concluded the opposite: that letting a president run out the clock amounts to canceling spending without a vote, something only Congress can do[6]. No court has ever ruled on which reading is right.
What the Money Was For, and Who's Fighting Over the Label
Of the $810 million, $567 million came from Health and Human Services programs that serve refugees, asylum seekers and other noncitizens[1][4]. The rest was smaller and more varied: $56 million from a HUD housing-counseling program, $25 million for education programs for migrant students, $15 million from the Department of Homeland Security, and $10 million from the Minority Business Development Agency[4][9].
The administration picked some pointed examples to make its case. It described certain grants as funding an "LGBT youth summit" and a "Therapy for Latinx workshops" program, and cast the HUD money as pushing diversity politics[3][12][13]. Fox News, the Washington Examiner and the Daily Caller led their stories with those details, largely repeating the administration's own labels for the programs, including "illegal aliens[3][4][12]." The Washington Examiner and the Daily Caller also rounded the $810 million total up to "$1 billion" or wrote it out as "$1,000,000,000[4][12]."
Refugee and immigrant service organizations that actually receive this money see something more basic: funding Congress already approved, now gone before it could be spent on the services it was meant for[1][9].
"A Clear Violation," Says a Republican
Senator Susan Collins of Maine didn't wait for Democrats to object. She called the move "a clear violation" of the law and "the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse[5][1]." As a Republican and the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, her objection carries a different weight than a Democratic one. It's not about the programs. It's about whether her committee's work, and any future budget deal she negotiates, actually means anything if the executive branch can cancel it by waiting out a deadline[5][8].
Democratic leaders piled on with sharper language. Senator Patty Murray called it "theft from the American people[2]." Senator Jeff Merkley called it "an illegal line item veto," a reference to a device the Supreme Court struck down in 1998[2][9]. Representative Rosa DeLauro argued the administration had been "unlawfully impounding funds all year" specifically to set up this late-September cancellation[2]. Senator Chuck Schumer noted the cuts also reach children, K-12 students, small businesses and health research, not just immigration programs[2].
NBC News, CNN and MS NOW built their headlines around that word, "unlawful," attributing it to the lawmakers who said it[2]. CNN also noted that Collins is in a competitive re-election race in a state that doesn't reliably vote Republican, which puts her objection in political context without undercutting the substance of it[9].
The Court That Hasn't Ruled
This isn't the administration's first pocket rescission. In August 2025, it used the same maneuver on about $4.9 billion in foreign aid[4][7]. That case reached the Supreme Court, which on September 26, 2025, let the administration keep withholding roughly $4 billion of that money while the underlying legal fight continued[7][11]. Crucially, the Court didn't decide whether pocket rescissions are actually legal. It only decided the money could stay frozen in the meantime.
That's the gap both sides are operating in now. GAO has published its position that pocket rescissions violate the Impoundment Control Act, comparing them to the line-item veto the Supreme Court already struck down once[6]. But a GAO opinion isn't a court ruling, and it doesn't bind anyone. The Congressional Research Service, Congress's nonpartisan research arm, says plainly that the question has never been decided on the merits[7]. Until a court settles it, the tactic works in practice whether or not it's legal.
Congress can't fix this one in time even if it wanted to. The House is out of session until after the November elections, so there's no vote to take before the money expires September 30[8][1]. The administration points to a 1977 rescission under President Carter as a precedent that late requests have happened before[8].
A Package Everyone Describes Differently
The coverage split largely along the fault line you'd expect. Right-leaning outlets, including Fox News, the Washington Examiner and the Daily Caller, led with what the White House says the money funded, using its own program descriptions and treating the GAO objection as a secondary controversy rather than a legal finding[3][4][12]. Center-left outlets, including NBC News, CNN and MS NOW, led with the lawmakers' "unlawful" framing and gave the administration's legal argument comparatively little space[2][9][16].
One inconsistency shows up across nearly every outlet, regardless of leaning: the total. OMB's own package adds up to $810 million, but the Associated Press and several outlets that ran its wire copy, including CBS News and MS NOW, describe it as "nearly $1 billion" without explaining the difference[8][15][16]. Outside North America and the UK, coverage was thin. The only foreign outlets found covering this were CBC in Canada, running AP wire copy, and IBTimes UK, whose headline led with the administration's most attention-grabbing examples, "Woke International Education" and "Therapy for Latinx[8][13]."
What happens to the $567 million in HHS services, and the rest of the $810 million, now depends on whether the money can be committed to something before September 30 or whether it simply lapses[1][4]. Either way, the legal question underneath it, whether a president can use a five-day window to cancel spending Congress already approved, stays open for the next fight.
Summary
On Friday, Sept. 25, 2026, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) sent Congress a package of proposed spending cancellations totaling about $810 million[1][2]. The fiscal year ends Sept. 30. That timing matters. Under a 1974 law, the president can ask Congress to cancel money it already approved. Congress then gets 45 days to agree. But unspent one-year money expires when the fiscal year ends. So a request sent five days before the deadline can let the money run out before Congress ever votes. This is called a 'pocket rescission'[1][6].
Most of the money, $567 million, came from Health and Human Services (HHS) programs for refugees, asylum seekers and other noncitizens[1][4]. The White House says the programs are wasteful or push diversity politics, and that the 1974 Impoundment Control Act allows the move[1][3]. Some outlets, including the Associated Press, describe the total as 'nearly $1 billion.' Those reports did not explain the gap with the $810 million figure[8][15].
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) called the move 'a clear violation' of the law and 'the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse'[5][1]. Democratic leaders called it illegal too[2]. They rely on the Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress's own audit agency. GAO has concluded that pocket rescissions in general are not allowed by the 1974 law[6]. GAO has not issued a ruling on this specific package in any report found for this story.
The core dispute is over a gap in the law. The administration says the statute nowhere bans a late request. GAO and the move's critics say that reading would let a president cancel spending by simply waiting out the clock[6][7]. No court has settled the question. In 2025 the Supreme Court let a similar $4 billion foreign-aid cut stand for the time being, without ruling on whether it was legal[7][11].
The Event
On Sept. 25, 2026, OMB, led by Director Russell Vought, sent Congress proposals to cancel about $810 million in money already approved, across 11 items[1][10]. The request arrived five days before fiscal year 2026 ended on Sept. 30, and while the House was out of session until after the November elections[8][1]. Sen. Susan Collins and several Democratic leaders publicly called the move unlawful[5][2].
Undisputed Facts
- OMB sent Congress about $810 million in proposed rescissions on Sept. 25, 2026, five days before the fiscal year ended on Sept. 30[1][10].
- About $567 million of the total came from HHS programs serving refugees, asylum seekers and other noncitizens[1][4].
- Other items included $56 million from a HUD counseling program, $25 million for education programs for migrant students, $15 million from DHS, and $10 million from the Minority Business Development Agency[4][9].
- The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 gives Congress 45 days of session to approve a president's proposed rescission. If Congress does not act, the money must be released[7][6].
- GAO has concluded that pocket rescissions are not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act[6][17].
- This is the second pocket rescission of Trump's second term. The first, in August 2025, targeted about $4.9 billion in foreign aid[4][7].
- On Sept. 26, 2025, the Supreme Court let the administration keep withholding about $4 billion of that foreign aid while the case went on. It did not rule on whether pocket rescissions are legal[7][11].
- OMB says the Impoundment Control Act authorizes the move[1][2].
The Pressure
Strip away the moralizing and blame. What structural realities persist regardless of which narrative wins?
- The calendar is the weapon
- One-year money that is not committed by Sept. 30 expires. The 1974 law gives Congress 45 days to act. So a request sent in the last weeks of the fiscal year leaves Congress no time to vote before the money lapses[6][7].
- No final court ruling
- No court has ruled on whether pocket rescissions are legal. The Supreme Court's 2025 order was only temporary. Until there is a ruling, the tactic works in practice whatever its legality[7][11].
- Power of the purse is shared
- Congress writes spending bills, but the executive branch actually spends the money. Collins and other Republican appropriators have a stake in defending Congress's power that is separate from party loyalty[5][7].
Material realityAbout $810 million in approved money, $567 million of it for HHS services for noncitizens, is set to expire unless it is committed by Sept. 30, 2026[1][4]. The House is out of session through the November elections, so Congress cannot vote on the request in time[8]. GAO's opinion that the tactic is illegal is not binding. Any reversal would come from a court or a future spending law[7].
Narrative as a weaponThe White House wants the story to be about what the money paid for. It chose vivid examples such as 'Therapy for Latinx' and 'LGBT youth summit,' and right-leaning outlets and IBTimes UK carried them into headlines[12][13]. Democrats and Collins want the story to be about who controls spending, with 'unlawful' as the key word, and center-left outlets built their headlines around it[2][5]. Two framing problems cut across outlets. First, several outlets say 'GAO calls the move unlawful' as if GAO had issued a new ruling. The record shows a general GAO position that critics are applying to this package[6]. Second, the total varies between $810 million and 'nearly $1 billion' with no explanation[1][8].
How Each Side Sees It
Each major actor’s view — how it frames things, its underlying incentive, and how it’s materially affected. Tap a side to read it.
Frames it asFirst, the law's text: the Impoundment Control Act sets out how a rescission request works but never says when the president must send one. A request sent late in the year, they argue, is lawful[1][2]. Second, precedent: they point to a 1977 Carter-era rescission as a past example, and the Supreme Court let the 2025 cut stand while the case continued[8][11]. Third, accountability for taxpayer money: they argue that noncitizen services and DEI-style grants are not what voters want, and that Congress can pass any spending it chooses in future bills[3][4].
WhyCut spending that Congress will not vote to cut. Assert presidential control over how money is spent. Build a record for the view that the 1974 law limits presidential power too tightly[7][3].
Impact on themThe administration saves up to $810 million in one year if the money expires. It risks lawsuits and friction with Republican appropriators whose votes it needs on spending bills[1][14].
Frames it asThe Constitution gives Congress the power to decide spending. Collins called the move 'a clear violation' of the law and 'the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse'[5][1]. The argument is about the institution, not the programs. If a president can cancel money by waiting out the clock, then budget deals between the parties mean little. That makes future bipartisan spending bills harder to pass[5][8].
WhyProtect the Appropriations Committee's power and keep bipartisan budget deals possible. Collins is also in a hard re-election race in Maine, a state that is not reliably Republican[9].
Impact on themCollins risks friction with the White House. If the administration can undo spending deals, her committee's work loses value[5][9].
Frames it asThey argue the move is plainly illegal. Murray called it 'theft from the American people.' Merkley called it 'an illegal line item veto,' which the Supreme Court struck down in 1998[2][9]. DeLauro argues the administration held back money all year so it could be canceled at the deadline[2]. Schumer says the cut hits children, K-12 students, small businesses and health research, not just immigration programs[2].
WhyDefend programs their voters back. Show that Congress can still control spending. Use the dispute against the administration ahead of the November midterms[2][16].
Impact on themThey cannot reverse the cut before the money expires, because the House is out of session. Their options are lawsuits and future spending bills[8][7].
Frames it asGAO argues the Impoundment Control Act requires money to be released if Congress does not approve a cut within 45 days. Holding money until it expires, GAO says, is an unlawful impoundment. It also says reading the law any other way would clash with the Constitution's rule that both chambers and the president must approve changes to the law. It compares the tactic to the line-item veto the Supreme Court struck down in Clinton v. City of New York[6][7].
WhyGAO works for Congress. Part of its job is to hold presidents to the 1974 law[17].
Impact on themGAO's opinions are not binding on courts. It can report to Congress and, by law, can sue, but that power has rarely been tested[7].
Frames it asThe HHS money pays nonprofits for services to refugees, asylum seekers and unaccompanied children that Congress already approved[1][9]. Programs planned around that money now lose it[2].
WhyKeep the funding their programs rely on[1].
Impact on themAbout $567 million in HHS money for these services could expire unspent[1][4].
Like this article?
The Bias Ledger average rating 4.9
The same story, as framed by outlets across the spectrum, ordered least to most biased. The bias score (1 = straight, 10 = heavily spun) is an AI assessment of that framing — click an outlet to see its track record. The tell is the word choice or omission that reveals the angle.
| Outlet | Vantage | Bias | How they frame it | The tell |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Associated Press | U.S. center (wire) | 3 | Trump uses contested power to cut nearly $1B US in Congress-approved spending | 'Contested power' gives both sides a place. But it reports the 'nearly $1B' total without matching it to OMB's $810 million package. |
| Fox News | U.S. right | 4 | Trump cancels $810M in federal spending via pocket rescission move | A fairly flat headline ('revives rare budget maneuver'). The story puts the White House's program examples first and the GAO view second. |
| CNN | U.S. center-left | 4 | Trump admin cancels funding for refugees, immigrants and others in move lawmakers argue is illegal | It names who loses money ('refugees, immigrants') and attributes the illegality claim. It notes Collins's re-election race, which puts her objection in political context. |
| NBC News | U.S. center-left | 5 | Lawmakers slam Trump's 'unlawful' move to cut $810 million in federal funds | The headline is built around the critics' word 'unlawful.' It does attribute the word to lawmakers in quotation marks. The administration's legal argument gets little space. |
| Washington Examiner | U.S. right | 6 | Trump takes aim at DEI and noncitizen programs in $1 billion pocket rescission | The headline leads with the targets as the White House labels them, 'DEI' and 'noncitizen,' and uses the 'illegal aliens' wording. It rounds $810 million up to '$1 billion.' |
| The Daily Caller | U.S. right | 6 | Trump Invokes Rare Authority To Cancel Nearly $1,000,000,000 In Congressionally Approved Spending | Writing out '$1,000,000,000' with all its zeros plays up the size, and the total is inflated from $810 million. Calling it an 'authority' presents the contested power as settled. |
| IBTimes UK | British, commercial digital | 6 | Trump Halts $810M to Stop Programmes Flagged as 'Woke International Education' and 'Therapy for Latinx' | The headline repeats the White House's hand-picked examples. That frames the whole package by its most eye-catching items. |
References
- White House moves to block $810 million in funding through pocket rescission — CNBC · U.S. business news, center; owned by Versant
- Lawmakers slam Trump's 'unlawful' move to cut $810 million in federal funds — NBC News · U.S. center-left network news; Comcast/NBCUniversal
- Trump cancels $810M in federal spending via pocket rescission move — Fox News · U.S. right; Fox Corporation
- Trump takes aim at DEI and noncitizen programs in $1 billion pocket rescission — Washington Examiner · U.S. conservative; owned by Clarity Media (Anschutz)
- White House orders over $800M in funds rescinded; Collins calls it 'clear violation' of law — ABC News · U.S. center-left network news; Disney-owned
- What is a "Pocket Rescission" and is It Legal? — U.S. Government Accountability Office · Legislative-branch agency that reports to Congress; a party to the separation-of-powers dispute
- Pocket Rescissions and the Impoundment Control Act: Legal Authority and Options for Congress — Congressional Research Service · Congress's in-house research agency; nonpartisan analysis written for lawmakers
- Trump uses contested power to cut nearly $1B US in Congress-approved spending — CBC News (Associated Press wire) · Canadian public broadcaster carrying U.S. center wire copy
- Trump admin cancels funding for refugees, immigrants and others in move lawmakers argue is illegal — CNN · U.S. center-left; Warner Bros. Discovery
- What Is a 'Pocket Rescission'? Inside Trump's Move to Cancel $810 Million in Federal Funding — Time · U.S. center-left newsmagazine; owned by Marc Benioff
- What Supreme Court Said About Rare Power Trump Defies Congress With — Newsweek · U.S. center; privately owned digital-first magazine
- Trump Invokes Rare Authority To Cancel Nearly $1,000,000,000 In Congressionally Approved Spending — The Daily Caller · U.S. right; co-founded by Tucker Carlson
- Trump Halts $810M to Stop Programmes Flagged as 'Woke International Education' and 'Therapy for Latinx' — IBTimes UK · British commercial digital outlet, traffic-driven
- Trump cancels nearly $1B via pocket rescission — The Hill · U.S. center; Capitol Hill trade outlet owned by Nexstar
- Trump cancels nearly $1 billion in spending approved by Congress, a move some lawmakers called illegal — CBS News · U.S. center; Paramount Skydance
- Trump uses rare authority to claw back nearly $1 billion in spending approved by Congress — MS NOW · U.S. left-leaning cable news; Versant
- Impoundment Control Act — U.S. Government Accountability Office · Legislative-branch agency that reports to Congress