The White House announced on Friday that it is rescinding nearly $1 billion in federal spending that Congress had previously approved, employing a procedural mechanism known as a “pocket rescission” to eliminate funding for various programs.
The majority of the targeted cuts affect Health and Human Services initiatives serving refugees and unaccompanied minors, with the administration stating these funds are no longer needed due to reduced illegal border crossings. Additional reductions include $70 million allocated for international education programs, $28 million in Health and Human Services research grants, $10 million from a minority business development initiative, $9 million in foreign debt relief for climate-related programs, and cuts to a Department of Education program supporting migrant students, a Department of Justice office addressing racial tensions, and housing counseling services from the Housing and Urban Development Department.
The action has generated significant opposition from lawmakers. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican and chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, characterized the move as illegal and an unconstitutional usurpation of Congress’s budgetary authority. She noted the administration provided no advance warning or consultation. Sen. Patty Murray, the lead Democrat on the committee, called the rescissions “theft from the American people” and criticized the administration’s approach as contrary to bipartisan spending decisions previously made by Congress.
Under federal law, Congress has 45 days to review such proposed cuts, but the administration announced these rescissions with only five days remaining in the fiscal year while the House was in recess. The Government Accountability Office has stated this tactic is illegal. This marks the second instance of Trump using pocket rescissions; the first, occurring a year prior, targeted $4.9 billion in foreign aid. The Supreme Court declined to block those earlier rescissions, citing the president’s foreign affairs authority. The Trump administration argues the mechanism remains legally permissible, though its use has been rare, with the last previous instance occurring in 1977.
Article Attribution | Read More at Article Source
Article summary produced by Claude AI