The trump administration claw back spending by canceling nearly $1 billion in programs Congress had approved, the Associated Press reported, using a seldom-invoked authority to rescind funds.
The AP reported that the White House announced it was canceling almost $1 billion in previously approved spending, describing the action as a use of a “rare and contested” power to claw back funds.
Legal and budget experts point to the Impoundment Control Act as the statutory route for such rescissions. The GAO explains that a rescission is “the proposed cancellation of budget authority that has been provided by Congress,” and the Tax Policy Center says the rescission process lets a president avoid spending money that has been appropriated but not yet obligated.
Administration officials typically must send Congress a special message explaining the amounts to be rescinded and the reasons, and Congress has an opportunity to approve or reject the request on an expedited timetable. A past AP summary of how the law works noted that Congress can act within a 45-day window on rescue requests under the Impoundment Control Act.
Critics and watchdogs have questioned the legality of certain unilateral moves called “pocket rescissions.” Local reporting cited the Government Accountability Office as saying the maneuver — often described as a “pocket rescission” — is illegal, and analysts have warned such steps can prompt legal challenges.
Why it matters: rescissions shrink the pool of money federal agencies expected to spend and can delay programs or force reprioritization. The Bipartisan Policy Center explains rescissions as the cancellation of previously appropriated funding and describes the legal framework that governs how they are proposed and resolved.
The article also places this move in a recent pattern of contested funding changes by the administration; an AP analysis earlier this month detailed broader cuts and freezes to grant programs, illustrating how such actions have affected federal grant flows across states.
Readers who want background on the administration’s other financial actions can see coverage of related moves, including the White House’s use of federal databases and personnel changes: use of the SAVE database and a prior legal challenge to a workforce cut at FEMA in a federal judge ruling.
Sources
- Associated Press — reported the White House announced it was canceling nearly $1 billion in spending and described the move as a “rare and contested” authority.
- U.S. Government Accountability Office — provided the definition of a rescission as “the proposed cancellation of budget authority that has been provided by Congress.”
- Tax Policy Center — explained that the rescission process allows a president to avoid spending appropriated funds that are not yet obligated.
- Bipartisan Policy Center — published an explainer on rescissions and the Impoundment Control Act’s role in the process.
- WCNC (local outlet) — cited the GAO and reported the maneuver known as a “pocket rescission” has been called illegal by watchdogs.
