The pocket rescission fight is not going away, and this round comes with a formal scolding from the government’s own watchdog. GAO just told Congress the $810 million cancellation was against the law. The White House says otherwise, and the money has already expired.
Here is the short version. On a Friday evening in late September, the White House sent Congress a package canceling more than $800 million in funds. However, Congress had already approved that money. Days later, the Government Accountability Office weighed in. Its verdict was blunt.
What a pocket rescission actually does
Think of it as a spending cut with a stopwatch. Under the Impoundment Control Act, Congress gets 45 days of continuous session to act on a request to cancel funds. With a pocket rescission, the fiscal year ends first. The money simply expires before lawmakers can vote.
That is exactly what happened here. The fiscal year ended Sept. 30, only five days after the package landed.
According to Sen. Susan Collins’ statement, the total came to $810 million. The White House said the funds went to what it called pro-illegal-immigration programs. Health and Human Services supplied about $567 million of the total, and the Office of Refugee Resettlement took the biggest share. The package also named Education, HUD and Justice programs. If you want context on the immigration fights behind this, see our explainer on the administration’s deportation plans.
The GAO says the rescission package is illegal
On Sept. 29, GAO told congressional leaders that pocket rescissions are unlawful. Its reading is that the Impoundment Control Act allows only temporary withholding of funds. GAO says the government must make the money available to spend unless Congress rescinds it.
Collins, a Republican who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, did not hold back. “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” she said. She also accused the budget office of trying to undermine Congress’s power of the purse. In her words, “OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding.”
Democrats piled on. Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on House Appropriations, said the administration was “once again trying to steal more money.” CBS News reported her remarks.
The White House defends the canceled spending
OMB Director Russell Vought was not shaken. He called the GAO finding “not a surprise” and described the agency as “hyper partisan.” He also told Fox News he did not expect legal challenges. The Supreme Court, he argued, had already upheld the administration’s ability to use the tool.
That claim deserves a closer look. The Supreme Court’s 2025 order was an interim stay, not a final ruling on the merits. Foreign-affairs authority also weighed heavily in that case, and this year’s cuts are domestic. So the legal question is far from settled.
Meanwhile, the president remains committed, the White House says, to using all possible tools to cut spending that does not benefit American citizens.
Here’s the thing: this is a repeat
This is the second year in a row. In 2025, the administration used the same maneuver to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid, the first pocket rescission since 1977. GAO called that one illegal too, but it never sued. Collins is asking GAO to file a lawsuit this time. She says she made the same request last year without success.
So why should anyone outside Washington care? Congress passes spending laws. A president who can run out the clock on them has quietly rewritten who holds the purse. Collins also faces a tough reelection race in Maine. Her vote to confirm the budget officials behind the cuts will not make that easier. For another look at how the White House treats taxpayer money, read our piece on whether Trump will reimburse taxpayers for his ads.
The big unanswered question is whether anyone will go to court. GAO sat out the last round, and Vought is betting no one will challenge this one. Collins says she will work with colleagues to address what she calls illegal actions.
But a watchdog’s warning is only worth so much when the rescinded funds are already gone. So who files the lawsuit?
