President Trump’s team is eyeing a sneaky maneuver to slash federal spending that’s got even some loyal Republicans raising eyebrows.
The Hill reported that the controversy centers on a potential “pocket rescission” tactic floated by the White House budget chief, a move that could let the administration withhold congressionally approved funds without lawmakers’ say-so, sparking legal and bipartisan concerns amid fears of a government shutdown this fall.
Let’s rewind a bit—Trump has already made history as the first president in decades to successfully use the special rescissions process, clawing back roughly $9 billion in funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting with GOP-led congressional backing.
That was a win for fiscal hawks. But now, some Republican lawmakers are sweating over the prospect of voting on another, thornier batch of cuts.
Enter the idea of “pocket rescissions,” pitched by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought as one of the “executive tools” on the table.
Vought’s plan could allow the administration to hold funds until they expire by timing rescission requests within 45 days of the fiscal year’s end on Sept. 30. It’s a clever workaround, but is it a constitutional one?
“Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,” warned Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho. With all due respect to Simpson’s principled stand, if the administration is serious about tackling our ballooning deficits, shouldn’t every option be considered before we dismiss it outright?
Vought, however, seems unfazed, describing pocket rescissions as “no different” from normal ones, just with strategic timing. He’s framing this as a necessary push to “deal with our fiscal situation,” a goal many conservatives cheer. Yet, the risk of alienating both parties in Congress looms large—hardly a recipe for unity.
The Impoundment Control Act allows the administration to pause funding for 45 days while Congress mulls a rescission request, but if lawmakers say no, the money must be released.
Under a pocket rescission, though, funds could be held until they vanish at the fiscal year’s close. Some budget experts call this “profoundly illegal,” arguing it defies congressional intent.
Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide, put it bluntly: “It would allow you to impound funds without congressional approval.” That’s a sharp critique, but let’s be real—Washington’s spending addiction needs a tough intervention, even if the legal waters here are murky at best.
Even the Government Accountability Office has weighed in, noting during Trump’s first term that withholding funds until expiration isn’t allowed under current law.
Other experts, though, see impoundment rules as unclear, with some suggesting this could be a loophole worth testing. If Congress wanted to ban this outright, couldn’t they have done so by now?
Not all Republicans are sold on the legality or wisdom of this approach, with Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., admitting, “I don’t know” when pressed on the issue. Kennedy’s hesitation mirrors a broader unease among GOP ranks. He’d “prefer” a different path, one where Congress gets a clear vote on cuts.
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole, R-Okla., echoed that sentiment, stressing, “I expect Congress to vote.” Cole’s concern about moves that sidestep lawmakers is valid—conservatives value checks and balances, not executive overreach, no matter who’s in the Oval Office.
The rift isn’t just procedural; it’s personal for some Republicans wary of slashing programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or public broadcasting funds that support PBS and NPR. These cuts hit close to home for constituents who rely on local stations. It’s a reminder that fiscal restraint can’t ignore real-world impacts.
Adding fuel to the fire, fears of a government shutdown this fall are growing, and the pocket rescission strategy could complicate bipartisan funding talks for the next fiscal year.
If the administration pushes forward with GOP-only support, it risks derailing broader negotiations. That’s a gamble when gridlock already threatens to halt government operations.