Trump Rescinds Almost A Billion In Funds

President Donald Trump moved Friday to cancel approximately $810 million in congressionally approved federal spending, targeting money connected to immigration-related services, race-focused initiatives and other programs the administration says should no longer receive taxpayer funding.

The White House is using a rarely invoked budget strategy known as a “pocket rescission” as the Sept. 30 end of the federal fiscal year approaches. The maneuver could allow the affected funds to expire before Congress completes the normal review period for a presidential rescission request.

The action adds another major front to Trump’s effort to reshape federal spending and immigration policy, while also reviving a long-running constitutional dispute over how much authority presidents have to withhold money Congress has already appropriated.

White House Targets Hundreds of Millions in Federal Funding

According to the White House, the latest rescission effort includes $567 million in Department of Health and Human Services funding associated with services for refugees, asylum seekers and other noncitizens.

The administration characterized the spending as unnecessary or inconsistent with its priorities and said Trump was acting to eliminate programs it considers wasteful or harmful. Those descriptions reflect the White House’s characterization of the targeted programs.

Additional funding targeted in the package involves programs the administration has described as promoting race-based policies and other initiatives it opposes.

For Americans concerned about the size and direction of federal spending, the move raises a fundamental question: Can a president stop taxpayer money from being spent after Congress has already approved it?

The answer is at the center of a significant legal dispute.

What Is a Pocket Rescission?

A rescission occurs when a president asks Congress to cancel money that lawmakers previously appropriated but that has not yet been spent.

Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a president can formally propose a rescission and temporarily withhold the affected money while Congress considers the request.

Congress then receives a period of 45 days of continuous session to approve the cancellation.

If lawmakers do not approve the rescission, the funds generally must be made available for obligation.

A pocket rescission attempts to use the calendar differently.

When the president submits a rescission request close to the expiration date of the funding, the money can potentially expire before Congress completes that review period.

In practical terms, the money may go unspent even though Congress never voted to cancel it.

Is a Pocket Rescission Legal?

That question remains highly contested.

The Government Accountability Office, Congress’s nonpartisan auditing agency, has taken a clear position: it says the Impoundment Control Act does not permit an administration to withhold funds proposed for rescission until they expire.

GAO says that if Congress does not approve the proposed cancellation, the executive branch must make the funds available for prudent obligation before their expiration date.

The Trump administration has taken a different position and has embraced pocket rescissions as a tool for challenging federal spending that conflicts with the president’s agenda.

That disagreement sets up a larger struggle over the Constitution’s separation of powers.

Congress controls federal appropriations through its constitutional “power of the purse,” while the executive branch is responsible for carrying out the laws and administering federal programs.

Exactly how the Impoundment Control Act applies when appropriations are about to expire remains at the heart of the dispute.

Trump Used the Same Strategy in 2025

The latest $810 million action is not the first time Trump has relied on a pocket rescission.

In August 2025, Trump submitted a proposal seeking to cancel approximately $4.9 billion in foreign-aid funding shortly before the end of the fiscal year.

The White House described that action as the first presidential pocket rescission in nearly 50 years.

GAO subsequently reviewed the 2025 rescission proposal and continued to maintain that the Impoundment Control Act does not authorize withholding funds through their expiration solely because they have been proposed for rescission.

Now, one year later, the administration is returning to the strategy.

Immigration Policy Plays Major Role in Spending Cuts

The latest funding battle also fits squarely into Trump’s broader immigration agenda.

Since returning to the White House, the administration has sought tougher enforcement against illegal immigration while also changing policies involving legal immigration, asylum, deportations, federal benefits and employment visas.

The administration has repeatedly argued that federal resources should prioritize American citizens and lawful government functions rather than programs it believes encourage illegal immigration or increase taxpayer costs.

Critics of the administration’s approach dispute some of those characterizations and argue that certain programs being targeted serve refugees, asylum seekers and other people who may be lawfully eligible for assistance.

That distinction is important because the broad category of “noncitizens” can include people with very different legal statuses under U.S. immigration law.

Trump Also Tightens H-1B Visa Rules

The administration’s immigration changes extend beyond illegal border crossings.

Trump recently continued restrictions affecting certain H-1B specialty-occupation workers, requiring qualifying petitions for workers outside the United States to be accompanied by a $100,000 payment, subject to national-interest exceptions.

The restriction took effect Sept. 21, 2026.

The administration argues that changes to the H-1B system are necessary to discourage employers from using lower-cost foreign labor in ways that can disadvantage American workers.

The broader policy demonstrates how Trump is using multiple parts of the federal government — including immigration enforcement, visa regulations and spending decisions — to advance his administration’s priorities.

Traditional Rescissions Require Congress to Act

There is an important difference between the latest maneuver and the traditional rescission process.

With a conventional rescission, the president proposes eliminating spending and Congress votes to approve the cancellation.

A pocket rescission is more controversial because the timing could result in money expiring without Congress ever approving the requested cut.

That distinction matters because Congress — not the president — has the constitutional authority to appropriate federal money.

GAO says the executive branch cannot use the rescission process to shorten the period during which congressional appropriations remain available.

The administration’s position places greater emphasis on presidential authority to challenge spending it considers inconsistent with its policies.

Why the $810 Million Spending Fight Matters

The immediate dispute involves hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars, but the consequences could extend well beyond this particular funding package.

If presidents can effectively cancel expiring appropriations by submitting rescission requests shortly before the fiscal year ends, future administrations could attempt to use the same strategy against spending approved by Congress.

That means the fight is not simply about immigration programs or race-focused initiatives.

It is also about who ultimately controls federal spending: Congress, the president or some combination of both under the Impoundment Control Act.

For supporters of Trump’s spending agenda, the action reflects the administration’s effort to reduce federal programs it considers unnecessary and redirect government resources toward its stated priorities.

Opponents argue that presidents cannot unilaterally substitute their spending preferences for appropriations enacted by Congress.

With the federal fiscal year ending Sept. 30, the latest $810 million pocket rescission ensures that the battle over taxpayer spending, immigration policy and presidential power will remain a major issue in Washington.