Congress is reasserting its constitutional control over federal spending by blocking Trump administration initiatives that lawmakers argue illegally usurp the power of the purse. Earlier this month, GOP senators overwhelmingly agreed to a bipartisan government funding bill that would temporarily block the Trump administration from finalizing a federal rule allowing political appointees to steer money toward grants “aligned with the president’s agenda,” according to Politico reporting from August 21, 2026.
The House is expected to clear the bill next month, and Trump is anticipated to sign it to avert a shutdown before the midterms. The spending package represents one of several moves by Congress—including both Republicans and Democrats—to constrain White House authority over appropriated funds.
The Trump administration has repeatedly attempted to create new rules for federal grants and then deny funding based on those rules, only to face repeated defeats in court this summer. White House budget director Russ Vought has also delayed the release of cash for congressionally backed programs serving antipoverty services, foreign assistance, banking in underserved areas, and other initiatives, drawing bipartisan criticism. “Congress has appropriated money, and you don’t have the authority to impound it,” Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) chastised Vought in April 2026 over the withholding of hundreds of millions of dollars the Trump administration is supposed to send quarterly to states.
Republican appropriators have already taken modest steps to enforce Congress’ intent on spending by inserting stricter language into bipartisan funding bills Trump signed into law for the current fiscal year. That included new rules for shifting money between accounts and more explicit instructions for how dollars should be spent. “When you start issuing grants based on political connections, that’s not good for the system here,” said Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), a senior appropriator, objecting to the White House’s plan to put political appointees in charge of approving federal grants.
The Pocket Rescission Precedent
Republicans are now bracing for a possible rerun of the White House’s “pocket rescission” tactic as the fiscal year approaches its September 30 end. Vought used the legally dubious maneuver last year to unilaterally cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid by submitting a rescission request with less than 45 days left before the fiscal year expired, making it impossible for Congress to act within the required timeframe.
Under a decades-old law, the White House is allowed to send Congress a rescission request and withhold cash for 45 days while lawmakers consider whether to approve, reject, or ignore the proposal. But when the request arrives too late in the fiscal year, the funds expire before Congress can vote—a maneuver known as a pocket rescission. Republicans last summer approved Trump’s first rescission request for $9 billion in public media and foreign assistance, but the administration’s use of the same law weeks later to send a request for $4.9 billion in foreign aid, with insufficient time for congressional review, has alarmed GOP appropriators.
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) has publicly called on Vought to “go through the proper process with the Appropriations Committee” if the administration wants to rescind money intended for a specific program. The Office of Management and Budget did not respond to requests for comment on whether the White House plans to execute new pocket rescissions in the coming weeks, though Trump’s new pick for deputy director at the agency, Hal Duncan, told lawmakers that the agency is not ruling out any “fiscal tools.”
Federal judges throughout the country have weighed in on whether Trump is illegally encroaching on Congress’ funding power. Last month a federal judge declared that the administration cannot cancel grants based on new rules or goals established after the fact. In another case, the Trump administration admitted it canceled $7.6 billion “based solely on the political identity of the grant recipient’s state.” A federal judge also halted changes to teen-pregnancy prevention grants, concluding that it is unlawful “to impose conditions … that Congress did not intend or that are unreasonable or unexplained.”
The Supreme Court has yet to conclusively rule on the president’s spending tactics. But the pattern of congressional resistance—from Trump’s efforts to maintain control of Congress to Republican appropriators’ pushback on budget initiatives—signals a broader reassertion of legislative authority over federal spending. “I just think there’s a bipartisan desire to get back to the way the Constitution is supposed to operate,” said Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii, a senior appropriator, “where we decide how the money is spent.”
Sources
- Politico — reporting on GOP senators’ bipartisan spending bill blocking Trump’s grant rule, the history of pocket rescissions, and Republican appropriators’ concerns about White House spending tactics
- Congress.gov — background on the Impoundment Control Act and the rescission process
