President Trump is using a tool known as a “pocket rescission” to unilaterally cut roughly $5 billion in congressionally approved funding, sparking bipartisan pushback on Capitol Hill.
The rare move, which Trump announced in a letter sent to Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) late Thursday, is the latest step by Trump and his team to test the bounds of presidential authority and to root out what officials say is wasteful spending that does not align with the president’s agenda.
Here’s what to know about Trump’s attempt to claw back funding.
The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing the rescissions process. It allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the rescissions request. If lawmakers opt not to approve the request, the funds must be released.
But a pocket rescission is when the president sends the same type of request to Congress within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The request is made so late that the funding is essentially paused until it runs out at the end of the year regardless of congressional action.
The tactic has not been used since then-President Jimmy Carter did so in 1977.
The Trump White House earlier this year submitted a rescissions package to Capitol Hill that targeted a total of $9 billion in funding for global aid programs and the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which funds NPR and PBS. Republican lawmakers approved that request, and Trump signed it into law in July.
With the pocket rescission, the White House is seeking to claw back $4.9 billion in funds for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), which the Trump administration has aggressively dismantled.
A White House official said $3.2 billion of the rescission would target USAID to effectively shutter the agency. Some of the funding outlined in the rescissions letter Trump sent to Capitol Hill includes money for global climate projects and gender equality programs in other countries.
The announcement also targets $393 million in spending toward Contributions for International Peacekeeping Activities, which goes toward United Nations-aligned programs, as well as millions of dollars in other peacekeeping programs that are connected to the United Nations.
The White House’s funding maneuver was greeted with skepticism and frustration from some on Capitol Hill, particularly in the Senate where lawmakers have been less willing to cede congressional authority to the White House.
“Instead of this attempt to undermine the law, the appropriate way is to identify ways to reduce excessive spending through the bipartisan, annual appropriations process. Congress approves rescissions regularly as part of this process,” Sen. Susan Collins (Maine), the top Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.
Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (N.Y.) called the move a rejection of bipartisanship when government funding runs out at the end of September.
“Today’s announcement of the administration’s plan to advance an unlawful ‘pocket rescission’ package is further proof President Trump and congressional Republicans are hellbent on rejecting bipartisanship and ‘going it alone’ this fall,” Schumer said in a statement.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) accused Trump of “illegally ripping away bipartisan funding approved by Congress.”
“Republicans can’t be trusted to honor a budget deal while they’re rigging government funding,” Warren posted on social platform X.
But a White House official downplayed the suggestion that they were poisoning the well on bipartisan appropriations negotiations ahead of a key government funding deadline.
“Democrats are going to give you a line that says that this will keep us from ever being able to get a deal in Congress. And that’s not true,” the official said. “There have been rescissions before. There have been pocket rescissions before.”
Some lawmakers, including Collins, have argued that the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has determined the use of a pocket rescission is unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act.
“Article I of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse. Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” Collins said.
But the White House is prepared to defend its theory of the case should the GAO rule against the move.
A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget said the GAO previously provided recommendations for how Congress could amend the law to prevent future pocket rescissions. But because no amendments were made, the spokesperson said, it remains a lawful tool for the executive branch.
“The Impoundment Control Act is not something that we’re huge fans of, but we have been encouraged by Congress to use the Impoundment Control Act to send up rescissions, in this case, a pocket rescission,” a White House official said.
“So we are on very firm legal footing, and we will be making that case, and I think, of course, if they do consider this, they will decide along the lines of what we’ve articulated,” the official added.