GAO declares Trump’s $810M pocket rescission unconstitutional, prompting legislative push

Key points

• GAO General Counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez stated in a letter to Congress that the president lacks the constitutional authority to force the expiration of budget authority that Congress has already enacted.
• The $810 million rescission package, submitted Friday, targets programs including $69.6 million for Higher Education Act Title VI international education and $52 million for migrant student grants, with the administration citing 'woke' or wasteful spending as justification.
• The move is classified as a 'pocket rescission' because it was submitted within 45 days of the fiscal year’s end on September 30, leaving Congress no time to vote before the funds lapsed.
• Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins and other GOP members are considering adding language to the fiscal 2027 funding deal to block such maneuvers, though some Republicans like Sen. John Kennedy have defended the tactic as necessary to cut waste.
• The GAO has not initiated legal action against the administration, partly because it has operated without a Senate-confirmed leader since December, and previous Supreme Court rulings on similar issues did not address the underlying legality of pocket rescissions.

Background

This development follows a similar $4.9 billion cancellation of foreign aid by the Trump administration last year, which was initially ruled against by a federal district court but stayed by the Supreme Court on procedural grounds. The current dispute highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches over budgetary control, particularly as Congress prepares for the 2026 midterms and debates broader fiscal policy issues including healthcare fraud and AI regulation.

How outlets are covering it

The Government Accountability Office and Democratic lawmakers, including Rep. Brendan Boyle and Sen. Jeff Merkley, view the pocket rescission as an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s power of the purse. In contrast, the White House and some Republican senators, such as John Kennedy, argue that the tactic is a legitimate tool to eliminate wasteful spending that Congress has failed to address. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins and other GOP appropriators are now seeking legislative solutions to curb the practice, indicating a shift in Republican sentiment, while Democrats like Sen. Patty Murray express skepticism that Republicans will support such restrictions given their past blocking of similar language. The administration’s justification for the cuts includes claims that the targeted programs support 'woke' or wasteful projects, a narrative that has drawn criticism from both parties as an overreach of executive power.

Why it matters

The GAO’s ruling underscores the constitutional limits on executive power to control federal spending, a core principle of the U.S. government. If the pocket rescission is upheld, it could set a precedent for future presidents to bypass Congress on budgetary matters, potentially undermining the legislative branch’s role in fiscal policy. The outcome of this dispute will also influence the 2026 midterms, as both parties are using the issue to frame their positions on government spending and executive overreach. Additionally, the lack of a clear legal resolution may lead to further litigation and political conflict, affecting the stability of federal funding for critical programs in education, health, and social services.

What to watch

Congress is expected to debate legislative fixes to the Impoundment Control Act as part of the fiscal 2027 funding deal, with Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins leading the effort. The GAO may consider legal action against the administration if it continues to use pocket rescissions, though its current leadership vacuum may hinder such efforts. The Supreme Court could be asked to rule on the legality of pocket rescissions if the case proceeds, potentially setting a precedent for future budgetary disputes. In the short term, the administration is expected to defend its actions, while Democrats will push for immediate legislative restrictions to prevent similar maneuvers in the future.