The White House revealed on Friday that President Trump plans to cut $810 million from congressionally approved budgets linked to minority groups, immigrants, and research programs. This reduction uses a contentious legal strategy known as a pocket rescission. Trump’s administration employed a similar technique last year to obstruct $4 billion in spending, including $3.2 billion for the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). This decision reached the Supreme Court, which didn’t assess the legal merits but reversed a prior injunction by the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia requiring funds to be allocated as Congress intended.
Critics label the Trump administration’s use of a pocket rescission as illegal, demonstrating its commitment to cut spending deemed unnecessary. If normalized, it could significantly increase presidential power over financial allocations, traditionally managed by Congress.
Newsweek reached out to the White House for comments, despite the inquiry being outside of regular office hours.
New Pocket Rescission Announcement
The White House issued a statement explaining Trump’s use of pocket rescission, described as a “long neglected” authority from the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. The goal is to “reduce wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens.” Targeted funds include support for NGOs assisting migrants, housing aid, and programs for international academics and students.
The Impoundment Control Act permits the president to temporarily withhold spending approved by Congress while requesting a reconsideration. Congress has a 45-day window to agree or disagree. However, with the fiscal year ending on September 30, and Congress not returning until after the elections, it lacks time to counter this decision, creating a pocket rescission.
This situation is controversial, enabling the president to block spending without legislative approval, challenging Congress’s constitutional financial authority.
2025 Supreme Court Decision
In 2025, the Trump administration took similar action, withholding $4 billion from USAID and the State Department in a foreign aid crackdown. This move, close to the fiscal year’s end, prevented Congressional intervention and was deemed “unlawful” by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican Senate Appropriation Committee chair. The action faced court challenges from defunded organizations. Initially, the U.S. District Court issued a preliminary injunction for spending to continue as Congress intended.
On September 26, in a 6-3 conservative-liberal Supreme Court ruling, the Trump administration’s requested stay was upheld, blocking the funds again. The court ruled the Impoundment Control Act didn’t allow the suing groups to proceed with the case. It considered potential executive foreign affairs damage more critical than financial withholding impacts.
The decision specified it wasn’t a final case judgment. Justice Kagan, with Justices Sotomayor and Jackson, dissented. Kagan called it a “presidential usurpation of Congress’s budget authority,” arguing the administration hadn’t shown irreparable harm or probable success on merits. She advocated for continued lower court proceedings.
Ongoing Criticism of Pocket Rescission
The Trump administration’s announcement of another pocket rescission for $810 million led to sharp criticism. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated, “This package unlawfully removes nearly $1 billion in critical support for children, K-12 students, small businesses, and health and clean air research.”
Senator Collins, as Senate Appropriation Committee chair, said this demonstrates the Trump administration’s “intentional fund withholding for an illegal appropriation cancellation.” She emphasized, “The delay itself is an unreported impoundment, usurping Congress’s appropriation authority.”
For more information on this story, contact Edward Pearcey at Newsweek.
Leave a Reply