President Trump moved to cancel almost $1 billion in federal spending that Congress had already approved, the White House announced late Friday, using a rarely invoked maneuver known as a pocket rescission. The cancellations target programs serving refugees, asylees, unaccompanied children and other immigrants, along with diversity-focused health initiatives and what the administration labeled Woke International Education grants. The action marks the second time in as many years that the administration has used the tactic, and lawmakers in both parties immediately questioned its legality.

Main Story

President Trump moved to cancel almost $1 billion in spending that Congress had approved, the White House said late Friday, according to CBS News. The administration described the action as an effort to cut wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens. The cancellations were carried out through a pocket rescission, a maneuver that allows the president to notify Congress shortly before the end of the fiscal year that he does not wish to spend funds lawmakers appropriated.

The largest single item is $567 million in Department of Health and Human Services spending on services for refugees, asylees and other migrants. The White House also rescinded $50 million for several other programs that aid immigrants and noncitizens, $70 million in Woke International Education grants and fellowships, and $56 million in Housing and Urban Development programs. The Guardian reported that the Office of Management and Budget described the cuts as focused on the most harmful government spending.

Most of the reductions fall on services for immigrants, including nonprofits that serve refugees and unaccompanied minors. The administration argues the funds are no longer necessary because illegal border crossings have diminished considerably. A White House press release announcing the rescissions noted that some of the organizations are led by people who worked in the administration of Democratic president Barack Obama.

Why It Matters

The move matters because it tests the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act, the 1974 law that governs how presidents may withhold or propose to cancel appropriated funds. Under that law, the president can propose rescissions of budget authority, and Congress has 45 legislative days to approve them. But when proposals are made late in the fiscal year, the funds can effectively be withheld until they expire. The fiscal year ends Wednesday, leaving almost no window for Congress to act.

The practical effect is that programs serving some of the most vulnerable populations, including refugees and unaccompanied children in court, face immediate funding uncertainty. The political effect is a fresh confrontation over the separation of powers, with lawmakers from both parties accusing the administration of exceeding its constitutional authority. The legal effect could be prolonged litigation or a legislative response, depending on how Congress chooses to proceed.

Political Context

This is the second time in as many years that the White House has sought to cancel funding approved by lawmakers. The administration used the same tactic last year to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid funds approved by Congress, which marked the first pocket rescission since 1977, during the Carter administration. The repeat use suggests a deliberate strategy rather than an isolated budget maneuver.

The timing is also politically charged. The cancellations arrive near the end of the fiscal year and amid a broader push by the administration to reshape federal spending priorities. The White House has framed the cuts as targeting programs that do not benefit American citizens, while critics describe them as an end-run around Congress's power of the purse. The dispute cuts across party lines, with a senior Republican appropriator joining Democrats in questioning the legality of the action.

What Officials and Groups Are Saying

Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, strongly criticized the pocket rescission. According to CBS News and The Guardian, Collins said lawmakers were informed of the $810 million figure without warning or consultation. She described the delay itself as an impoundment that was not reported to Congress and called the action a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers. Collins also said the Office of Management and Budget is an agency of the executive branch and does not get to decide which programs are funded. She said she would work with colleagues to address what she called these illegal actions.

The White House defended the move, saying the president is committed to utilizing all possible tools to cut wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens. The Office of Management and Budget characterized the cuts as focused on the most harmful government spending. The administration also argued that reduced illegal border crossings make the immigrant services funding unnecessary.

Some lawmakers in both parties have called the tactic illegal, according to CBS News. The criticism from Collins, a Republican in a tough re-election campaign, is notable because it comes from within the president's own party and from the lawmaker who oversees the appropriations process in the Senate.

Timeline

  • 1974: The Impoundment Control Act is enacted, creating the framework for presidential rescission proposals and congressional review.
  • 1977: The last pocket rescission before the Trump administration occurs during the Carter administration.
  • Last year: The Trump administration uses a pocket rescission to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid funds approved by Congress.
  • Friday: The White House announces nearly $1 billion in cancellations, including $567 million in HHS migrant services, $50 million for immigrant and noncitizen programs, $70 million in Woke International Education grants, and $56 million in HUD programs.
  • Wednesday: The fiscal year ends, after which the withheld funds can effectively expire.

How the Pocket Rescission Works

The pocket rescission is a procedural maneuver that exploits the calendar. Under the Impoundment Control Act, the president may propose rescissions of budget authority, and Congress has 45 legislative days to approve them. If the proposal is submitted late in the fiscal year, the 45-day clock can run past the end of the fiscal year, at which point the funds expire and cannot be spent. In effect, the president can withhold the money without Congress ever voting on the cancellation.

Supporters of the maneuver argue it is a legitimate tool to control spending and eliminate waste. Critics argue it violates the separation of powers by allowing the executive branch to override appropriations decisions made by Congress. The dispute is not merely academic: it determines whether the president can unilaterally cancel spending that lawmakers have approved, or whether Congress's power of the purse remains supreme.

What Is Being Cut

The cancellations span several agencies and program areas. The Department of Health and Human Services accounts for the largest share, with $567 million in services for refugees, asylees and other migrants. An additional $50 million covers several other programs that aid immigrants and noncitizens. The administration also rescinded $70 million in Woke International Education grants and fellowships, and $56 million in Housing and Urban Development programs. The Guardian reported that most of the cuts focus on services for immigrants, including nonprofits that serve refugees and unaccompanied minors accused of being in the country illegally.

The White House press release announcing the rescissions noted that some of the organizations receiving the funds are led by people who worked in the Obama administration. That detail suggests the administration is framing the cuts in political terms as well as fiscal ones. The administration says the funds are no longer necessary because illegal border crossings have diminished considerably.

Reaction and Legal Questions

The reaction from Collins was swift and pointed. According to The Guardian, she said the action came without warning or consultation. She also said the delay itself was an impoundment that was not reported to Congress and described the move as a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers. Her statement that OMB does not get to decide which programs are funded goes to the heart of the constitutional dispute.

Some lawmakers in both parties have called the tactic illegal, according to CBS News. The legal question is whether the pocket rescission complies with the Impoundment Control Act or whether it circumvents the law's requirement that Congress approve rescissions. If the action is challenged in court, the outcome could set a precedent for future presidents of both parties.

The White House has not indicated any change in course. The administration says it is committed to utilizing all possible tools to cut wasteful and harmful government spending. With the fiscal year ending Wednesday, the practical window for Congress to respond is extremely narrow.

Frequently Asked Questions

What is a pocket rescission?

A pocket rescission is a maneuver in which the president notifies Congress shortly before the end of the fiscal year that he does not wish to spend funds that lawmakers appropriated. Because Congress has 45 legislative days to approve a rescission, a late proposal can run out the clock and let the funds expire.

How much money is being canceled?

The White House said it is canceling almost $1 billion. The items include $567 million in HHS spending on services for refugees, asylees and other migrants, $50 million for other immigrant and noncitizen programs, $70 million in Woke International Education grants and fellowships, and $56 million in HUD programs.

Why are lawmakers calling it illegal?

Critics say the maneuver circumvents the Impoundment Control Act and usurps Congress's appropriations powers. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, described it as a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers and said the delay itself was an unreported impoundment.

Has this been done before?

Yes. The administration used the same tactic last year to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid funds approved by Congress. That was the first pocket rescission since 1977, during the Carter administration.

What happens next?

The fiscal year ends Wednesday, leaving Congress little time to act before the funds effectively expire. Lawmakers could pursue legislation, litigation or oversight hearings, but the immediate effect is that the targeted programs face funding uncertainty.

What Happens Next

The cancellations are set to take effect as the fiscal year ends Wednesday, leaving Congress with almost no time to reverse them through the normal appropriations process. Collins has said she will work with colleagues to address what she called illegal actions, but the path forward is unclear. Lawmakers could pursue legislation, litigation or oversight hearings, and the dispute could ultimately be resolved in court.

For now, the targeted programs face immediate uncertainty. Nonprofits serving refugees and unaccompanied minors, diversity-focused health initiatives and international education grantees must plan for the possibility that the funds will not arrive. The broader question, whether a president can unilaterally cancel spending that Congress has approved, remains unresolved and is likely to shape budget battles for years to come. Readers should continue following the story as Congress weighs its response and as any legal challenges take shape.