In a democracy, the power to spend public money has long been understood as belonging to the legislature — a safeguard against the concentration of authority in any single hand. The Trump administration's cancellation of nearly $1 billion in congressionally approved funding, using a procedural maneuver timed to outpace legislative review, tests that foundational boundary once more. The cuts fall heaviest on programs serving refugees, unaccompanied minors, and minority communities — populations with little political shelter. Whether the courts will treat this assertion of executive will as perm
Trump Cancels Nearly $1B in Congress-Approved Spending Using Contested Power
Immigrant services, refugee support, and unaccompanied minor assistance programs are being defunded, affecting vulnerable populations.
It is a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers.
Mark
So Trump just cancelled a billion dollars Congress had already approved. How does that even work legally?
Mimi
He used something called a pocket rescission. Technically, Congress gets 45 days to review and block it. But he announced it with five days left in the fiscal year and the House wasn't in session, so Congress couldn't actually do anything about it.
Luke
Right—and the Government Accountability Office says it's illegal. But the Supreme Court already let him do this once with foreign aid last year. So the legal question is still open.
Mark
What did he cut?
Mimi
Mostly immigrant services—nonprofits serving refugees, unaccompanied minors. Also a Department of Education program for migrant students, a Justice Department office on racial tensions, minority business development, housing counseling. The administration says these programs are no longer needed because border crossings have dropped.
Luke
That's the administration's claim. The actual effectiveness of those programs and whether the border situation justifies cutting them entirely—that's a separate question the reporting doesn't settle.
Mark
Who's pushing back?
Mimi
Republican Senator Susan Collins called it a "usurpation" of Congress's power. Democratic Senator Patty Murray called it "theft from the American people." Collins is in a tough re-election race, so she's got political cover to break ranks.
Luke
Collins is important because she's Republican and she's saying this is illegal overreach. But it's worth noting she's also vulnerable electorally, so her opposition carries less weight than it might otherwise.
Mark
What happens now?
Mimi
Legally, it's unclear. The Supreme Court let the foreign aid rescissions stand. But this is domestic spending, which Congress has more direct constitutional authority over. Courts might see it differently.
Luke
And Congress could try to pass legislation blocking this, but Republicans control both chambers, so that's unlikely unless enough of them break with Trump—which we haven't seen yet.
El Pulso
- The White House cancelled nearly $1 billion in already-approved spending with only five days left in the fiscal year, deliberately leaving Congress no time to respond.
- Programs serving refugees, unaccompanied minors, migrant students, and minority businesses are being defunded, cutting off support to some of the country's most vulnerable people.
- The Government Accountability Office has declared the maneuver illegal, and Republican Senator Susan Collins — no reliable ally of the opposition — called it an outright 'usurpation' of Congress's constitutional power.
- Democratic Senator Patty Murray went further, calling the action 'theft from the American people,' and noted that Republicans had blocked legislative language that would have prevented exactly this kind of executive override.
- The administration has used this same tool before — blocking $4.9 billion in foreign aid last year — and the Supreme Court allowed it, but domestic spending cuts may face a far less forgiving legal standard.
- The move is part of a widening pattern of executive expansion that is steadily forcing the courts to decide how much power one president can hold.
In a democracy, the power to spend public money has long been understood as belonging to the legislature — a safeguard against the concentration of authority in any single hand. The Trump administration's cancellation of nearly $1 billion in congressionally approved funding, using a procedural maneuver timed to outpace legislative review, tests that foundational boundary once more. The cuts fall heaviest on programs serving refugees, unaccompanied minors, and minority communities — populations with little political shelter. Whether the courts will treat this assertion of executive will as permissible statecraft or constitutional overreach may define the shape of American governance for years to come.
On a Friday late in the fiscal year, the White House announced it was cancelling nearly $1 billion in spending that Congress had already approved — using a rare legal maneuver called a 'pocket rescission' that allows a president to block funds without triggering the normal 45-day congressional review. The timing was precise: with only five days left in the fiscal year and the House out of session, lawmakers had no practical window to respond.
The cuts swept across programs the administration labeled wasteful or ideologically driven — nonprofit organizations serving refugees and unaccompanied minors, a Department of Education initiative for migrant students, international education grants, minority business development funding, and housing counseling services, among others. The Office of Management and Budget described the action as eliminating 'the most harmful government spending.' The White House also noted, pointedly, that some recipient organizations were led by former Obama administration officials.
The legal ground is contested. The Government Accountability Office, Congress's independent watchdog, says the maneuver is illegal. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, condemned it without qualification — saying the White House offered no warning and no consultation. 'It is a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers,' she said, promising to pursue remedies alongside colleagues. Democratic Senator Patty Murray called it 'theft from the American people, plain and simple,' and pointed out that Democrats had tried to include protective language in recent spending negotiations, only to be blocked by Republicans.
This is the second time Trump has deployed the pocket rescission. A year earlier, he used it to block $4.9 billion in foreign aid; the Supreme Court declined to intervene, deferring to presidential authority over foreign affairs. But domestic spending may be treated differently by the courts, where Congress's constitutional power of the purse carries more explicit weight. The last president to attempt a pocket rescission before Trump was Jimmy Carter in 1977 — and the administration argues that precedent is distinguishable. What comes next hinges on whether the judiciary will draw a firmer line when the funds in question belong not to foreign policy, but to the lives of people inside the country's borders.
On Friday, the White House announced it was cancelling nearly $1 billion in spending that Congress had already approved. The administration used a legal maneuver called a "pocket rescission" to do it—a rare and contested power that allows a president to block funds without going through the normal congressional review process. The cuts targeted immigrant services, diversity initiatives, and education programs, among other areas the administration deemed wasteful or ideologically driven.
The Office of Management and Budget framed the action as eliminating "the most harmful government spending." Most of the money targeted went to nonprofits serving refugees and unaccompanied minors the administration says are in the country illegally, along with a Department of Education program for migrant students. The administration also cut $70 million for what it called "woke" international education programs, $28 million in Health and Human Services research grants, $10 million from a minority business development initiative, and $9 million in debt relief for countries funding climate policies. A Department of Justice office focused on reducing racial tensions and housing counseling services from the Department of Housing and Urban Development were also on the chopping block. The White House noted that some of the organizations receiving these funds were led by people who had worked in Barack Obama's administration.
The timing was deliberate. Federal law gives Congress 45 days to review and potentially block a president's proposed spending cuts. Trump announced these rescissions with only five days left in the fiscal year and the House out of session until after the November midterm elections—making congressional action essentially impossible. This is the second time Trump has used a pocket rescission. A year ago, he blocked $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid using the same method. The Supreme Court declined to block those rescissions, citing the president's broad authority over foreign affairs. This time, Trump is targeting domestic spending, which may face different legal scrutiny.
The Government Accountability Office, Congress's independent watchdog, says the maneuver is illegal. Republican Senator Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Committee on Appropriations and is facing a tough re-election campaign, condemned the action without reservation. She said the White House gave no warning and no chance for consultation. "It is a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers," Collins stated. "OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding." She promised to work with colleagues to address what she called "these illegal actions" and described the move as the latest attempt to "undermine Congress's constitutional power of the purse."
Democratic Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, was sharper in her language. She called the White House action "theft from the American people, plain and simple." She noted that these were funds Congress had delivered on a bipartisan basis and were meant to help people. "These are funds Congress has delivered on a bipartisan basis and should be helping people—not cut off by a president more focused on building a ballroom than investing in families," Murray said. She added that in recent spending negotiations, Democrats had fought to include language preventing the administration from overriding Congress on spending decisions, but Republicans declined to support it. "While Trump spends tax dollars on ads promoting himself, Congress needs to reassert its powers to help people, and it's past time Republicans join us in that fight," she said.
The rescission fits a broader pattern. The Trump administration has fired federal workers, imposed historic tariff increases, and started military action in Iran without congressional authorization. Each move puts pressure on the judicial branch to define the limits of presidential power. The last pocket rescission before Trump's occurred in 1977 under President Jimmy Carter, though the Trump administration argues that case is distinguishable because Carter had proposed the cuts well before the 45-day deadline. The administration maintains that the pocket rescission is a legally permissible tool, despite what it acknowledges is some legal murkiness around its use. What happens next depends on whether courts will treat domestic spending cuts the same way the Supreme Court treated foreign aid rescissions, or whether they will impose stricter limits on executive power when Congress's constitutional authority over the nation's purse is at stake.
Citas Notables
It is a usurpation of Congress's appropriations powers. OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.— Senator Susan Collins (R)
These are funds Congress has delivered on a bipartisan basis and should be helping people—not cut off by a president more focused on building a ballroom than investing in families.— Senator Patty Murray (D)
Quieres la nota completa?
Lee el original en CBC ↗