President Donald Trump’s administration is poised to escalate tensions in the ongoing government funding negotiations by threatening to unilaterally cancel federal spending through a controversial “pocket rescission” tactic. With just six weeks remaining before the October 1 fiscal year deadline, the White House has announced its intent to override Congress’ authority over funding, potentially leading to a government shutdown and a legal battle over constitutional spending power.
White House budget chief Russ Vought has defended this strategy, asserting it has “been used before” and arguing that the administration can treat funds as expired once the current fiscal year ends on September 30, regardless of congressional approval. This move has drawn sharp criticism from lawmakers and the government’s top watchdog, with many calling it illegal and a direct challenge to Congress’ constitutional authority over the federal budget.
A recent $9 billion rescission package, which included cuts to public broadcasting and foreign aid, was approved by Congress in July. However, the White House has not yet disclosed its plans for a potential secondary rescission, though officials have hinted at targeting the Department of Education. This could align with Trump’s long-standing goal of dismantling the agency, potentially leading to significant budgetary and policy changes for the U.S. education system.
Republican lawmakers are divided on the potential scale of future rescission packages. Speaker Mike Johnson has suggested a second package would be smaller than the initial $9 billion, while others expect much larger cuts. Nevertheless, both parties face mounting pressure to avoid a government shutdown, with Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Democratic leaders like Chuck Schumer expressing urgency to find a bipartisan resolution.
The threat of a pocket rescission has already begun to strain negotiations, with Democratic leaders like Delaware Senator Chris Coons accusing the White House of trying to “throw a wrench” in the process. Meanwhile, Republicans, including Sen. Thom Tillis, are cautious about allowing the Trump administration to shift control of funding decisions from Congress to the executive branch, raising questions about institutional integrity and the separation of powers.
The legal implications of this move are significant, as the Government Accountability Office has consistently ruled that pocket rescissions are unconstitutional, effectively ceding Congress’s power of the purse to the executive branch. Despite these legal challenges, White House officials, including Mark Paoletta, have dismissed the watchdog’s concerns, claiming the law permits such a maneuver and that Congress has not taken steps to close the loophole.
With the potential for a major legal showdown and the looming threat of a government shutdown, the stakes have never been higher. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle are caught in a delicate balancing act, trying to navigate the complex interplay of politics, legality, and the practical consequences of an impasse that could leave essential government services in jeopardy.