Trump Administration Seeks to Rescind Nearly $1 Billion in Federal Funding

The Trump administration announced Friday it is attempting to cancel nearly $1 billion in congressionally approved federal funding through a controversial maneuver known as a "pocket rescission." This action, which circumvents direct congressional approval, has drawn criticism from lawmakers across the political spectrum.

The rescission request targets funds allocated for programs and agencies that primarily serve immigrants, minorities, and children. A significant portion, over half of the total amount, is directed at the Health and Human Services (HHS) Department’s Office of Refugee Resettlement, with the administration stating the move aligns with a goal to prioritize American taxpayer dollars for citizens.

What is a Pocket Rescission?

The term "pocket rescission" is not a formal legal designation but refers to a tactic that mirrors a "pocket veto." In a pocket veto, a president allows a bill to die by not signing it within a 10-day period when Congress is adjourned. Similarly, a pocket rescission aims to nullify appropriated funds without direct congressional intervention.

According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), this tactic is most effective when a president requests the cancellation of funds very close to the end of the fiscal year, before they can be obligated for new uses. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) contends that the current move is permissible under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act (ICA). This act was enacted in response to President Richard Nixon's extensive use of impoundments and established a 45-day review period for Congress to consider rescission requests before funds would be released as planned.

However, the Trump administration's request arrived just five days before the fiscal year's end on September 30, significantly limiting Congress's ability to review the proposal or prevent the cuts. Legal experts and the GAO have raised concerns that this application of the ICA infringes upon Congress's constitutional power of the purse, effectively allowing the executive branch to alter laws by limiting the availability of funds.

This is not the first time the administration has employed this strategy. In August 2025, a request was made to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid. While that action faced legal challenges, the Supreme Court issued a stay that allowed the funds to remain withheld during ongoing litigation.

Programs Targeted for Cuts

The proposed rescission of $810 million includes significant cuts to HHS programs supporting refugees and unaccompanied minors, amounting to $567 million. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) also faces rescission requests for funds intended for nonprofits providing mental health and social services to migrants.

Additionally, nearly $25 million is targeted for cancellation from the Department of Education’s Special Programs for Migrant Students. Funding for the Housing and Urban Development Department’s housing counseling services is also included, with the administration citing concerns about "divisive and DEI-centric agendas" within the organizations receiving these funds.

The Department of Justice's office dedicated to reducing racial tensions would see $15 million rescinded, along with $10 million allocated to the Minority Business Development Agency, which supports minority entrepreneurs.

Congressional Opposition and Future Implications

The move has been met with strong opposition from both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, criticized the action as "illegal" and vowed to work with colleagues to address it. Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), her Democratic counterpart, characterized the rescission as "theft from the American people."

Legal challenges are anticipated, similar to those that followed the 2025 rescission attempt. The Supreme Court's previous intervention did not definitively rule on the legality of pocket rescissions, leaving the door open for renewed legal battles. Some experts suggest Congress could attempt to reappropriate the rescinded funds in subsequent fiscal cycles as a means of asserting its authority.