President Trump’s latest fiscal maneuver might just redefine how Washington spends your hard-earned tax dollars.
The Hill reported that the Trump administration is stirring the pot with a controversial idea called "pocket rescissions," which could allow the White House to withhold congressionally approved funds without lawmakers’ consent, sparking unease among Republicans and Democrats alike as a potential government shutdown looms this fall.
Trump made history as the first president in decades to successfully pull back about $9 billion in previously allocated funds for foreign aid and public broadcasting, with a GOP-led Congress giving the nod through a formal rescissions package.
That was a win for fiscal conservatives tired of seeing federal dollars vanish into questionable programs.
Fast forward to now, and the White House, led by Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, is floating a new tactic—pocket rescissions.
Vought called it “one of the executive tools” available, suggesting it’s just a matter of timing at the end of the fiscal year. But let’s be real: sidestepping Congress to let funds “evaporate” sounds less like a tool and more like a sledgehammer to bipartisan cooperation.
This strategy hinges on a murky interpretation of the Impoundment Control Act, which normally lets the administration hold funds for 45 days while Congress reviews a rescission request.
If lawmakers don’t approve within that window, the money must be released—unless, under a pocket rescission, it’s timed near September 30, potentially letting funds expire without a vote. It’s a clever workaround, but one that has even staunch conservatives raising eyebrows.
Some budget experts aren’t buying the legality of this move. Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide, called it “profoundly illegal,” arguing it lets the executive impound funds against congressional intent. If Kogan’s right, this could be less a fiscal fix and more a constitutional crisis waiting to happen.
Even within the GOP, there’s no consensus on this gambit. Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho didn’t mince words, stating pocket rescissions “are unconstitutional,” adding a wary, “we’ll see how it goes.” When a reliable conservative like Simpson sounds the alarm, it’s a sign this idea might be more trouble than it’s worth for party unity.
Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana echoed the skepticism, admitting he hasn’t “researched it” but would “prefer” a different approach. He’s fine with regular rescission packages—spelled out for a vote—but the idea of bypassing Congress rubs him the wrong way. It’s hard to argue with wanting transparency over backdoor budget cuts.
House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole of Oklahoma took a similar stance, emphasizing, “the only thing that would worry me is if Congress didn’t get a chance to vote on it.”
He’s not hung up on procedural labels but insists lawmakers must have a say, noting concern from both chambers and parties. When even GOP leaders are jittery, you know the administration’s got a tough sell ahead.
The broader context here is a White House on a mission to slash federal spending, which sounds great to those of us fed up with government bloat.
But the pocket rescission tactic risks alienating not just Democrats—who are predictably outraged—but also Republicans wary of cuts to programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief or public broadcasting funds for PBS and NPR. Targeting local stations some constituents rely on isn’t exactly a winning campaign slogan.
There’s also the looming specter of fiscal 2026 funding talks, which could be derailed if the administration pushes cuts with only GOP backing.
Bipartisan deals are already fragile—think of them as a wobbly Jenga tower—and this move might just pull out the wrong block. A government shutdown come September isn’t a far-fetched fear if tempers flare over this.
Experts point out that funds denied via pocket rescission at year’s end likely wouldn’t roll over, as any continuation would count as “new funding.” That’s a technicality, sure, but it means programs could be starved out with no easy fix. It’s a high-stakes game, and Congress might have to scramble for a deal just to keep the lights on.
Not everyone’s against the administration’s interpretation, though—some experts argue that if Congress wanted to ban this maneuver, they would have.
Still, the Government Accountability Office has previously said the law doesn’t permit withholding funds until they expire. That’s a pretty big red flag for a strategy banking on legal ambiguity.