Trump Cuts Nearly $1B in Congress-Approved Spending Using Contested Power

Targeted Domestic Programs and Federal Spending Cuts

The administration’s sweeping funding cancellations span multiple federal departments. According to the White House, the cuts focus on services for immigrants, including non-profits supporting refugees and unaccompanied minors. Officials defended the move by asserting that illegal border crossings have dropped considerably, rendering the funds unnecessary.

Additional programs facing elimination include a Department of Education initiative for migrant students, a Department of Justice office dedicated to reducing racial tensions, and housing counseling services managed by the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The White House also targeted Health and Human Services grant programs, alongside $70 million for international education initiatives, $28 million in HHS research grants, $10 million for a minority business development program, and $9 million in debt relief for foreign countries funding climate policies. A White House news release noted that some of the affected organizations are led by individuals who previously served in the administration of former President Barack Obama.

The “Pocket Rescission” Mechanism and Legal Clash

Federal law typically grants Congress 45 days to review proposed presidential spending cuts before they take effect. However, by announcing the package with only five days remaining in the fiscal year and the House of Representatives out of session ahead of the November midterm elections, the administration effectively bypassed that review period through a maneuver known as a “pocket rescission.”

The Government Accountability Office, an independent, non-partisan watchdog agency serving Congress, maintains that this maneuver is illegal. The action mirrors a similar move a year prior, when Trump blocked $4.9 billion in foreign aid via a pocket rescission for the first time in nearly 50 years. While the U.S. Supreme Court declined to block those foreign aid cuts—citing the president’s broad authority over foreign affairs—the current deployment targets domestic spending directly.

Congressional Condemnation and Constitutional Staking

Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican chair of the Senate Committee on Appropriations facing a tough re-election campaign, strongly condemned the move. Collins stated that the action occurred without warning or consultation, calling it “a usurpation of Congress’s appropriations powers.”

Collins described the maneuver as an attempt to undermine Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the lead Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, went further, labeling the White House action as “theft from the American people, plain and simple.” Murray noted that Democrats fought to include preventative language in recent spending negotiations, but Republicans declined to support those measures. The broader pattern of executive actions—including federal worker firings, tariff increases, and military engagement in Iran without congressional authorization—has increasingly shifted the burden to the judicial branch to define the limits of presidential power.

Frequently Asked Questions