Trump officials move to cancel $810M amid spending dispute

What just happened?

Did you hear about the big budget move in Washington? The Trump administration just announced it wants to cancel $810 million in funding that Congress already approved for refugees, immigrants, and other programs.

The White House says it’s targeting wasteful spending. But critics argue it sidesteps Congress’s constitutional power over the purse. The money was set aside with support from both parties, making this move unusual.

How does a pocket rescission work?

A president sends Congress a special message asking lawmakers to cancel certain funds that were already appropriated. Once that message goes out, the administration can temporarily withhold the money while Congress considers the request.

The timing is the key issue. In this case, the request arrived on September 25, just five days before the federal fiscal year ended on September 30, leaving little time for Congress to act before the funds expired.

Where do the cuts land?

The largest proposed cut is about $567 million from the Health and Human Services Department’s Refugee and Entrant Assistance account, which funds the Office of Refugee Resettlement’s programs for refugees, asylees, and other eligible noncitizens.

Other proposed cuts affect Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice, and international assistance programs. The administration describes the targeted spending as unnecessary, wasteful, or inconsistent with its policy priorities.

The timing that matters

Timing is everything with this maneuver. The rescission request arrived just five days before the federal fiscal year ended on September 30. Once submitted, funds are paused for 45 days while Congress has time to act.

But those 45 days run out after the money’s expiration date. This effectively cancels the funding without Congress ever taking a vote. Some lawmakers say that’s the whole point of submitting it so late.

Minority business cuts

One proposed cut targets $10 million in funding for the Minority Business Development Agency. The administration claims these grants are based on race and calls them unconstitutional race-based purposes in its notification letter.

The MBDA supports minority entrepreneurs through grants and business development services. The White House says the agency’s mission is divisive and discriminatory, which is why it proposed eliminating the agency in the 2027 budget request.

Fun fact: The MBDA was originally established as the Office of Minority Business Enterprise by President Richard Nixon on March 5, 1969, through Executive Order 11458. 

Help for future citizens

The Citizenship and Integration grant program would lose $10 million under this plan. The program has helped lawful permanent residents prepare for naturalization by supporting instruction in English, U.S. history, and civics.

The administration says Homeland Security has already paused the program and canceled grants from previous years. For people working toward citizenship, this could mean fewer resources to help them succeed on their journey.

Lawmakers push back

Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine isn’t happy about this move. She said the budget office withheld funds for months to execute what she calls an unlawful cancellation of money approved on a bipartisan basis.

Collins, who leads the Senate Appropriations Committee, said any effort to cancel appropriated funds without congressional approval violates the law.

The constitutional question

Who controls the federal purse? The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide how taxpayer money gets spent. But presidents have tried to push those boundaries over the years.

Merkley explained that the separation of powers means Congress, not the president, decides what programs exist and how much money they receive. The administration argues it’s using long-neglected presidential authorities under the Impoundment Control Act.

Little-known fact: Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution states that No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law. 

Not the first time

This is not the first time Trump has used this budget maneuver. In 2025, he moved to block about $4.9 billion in foreign aid through a similar pocket rescission, the first such use in nearly 50 years.

The White House celebrated that earlier move as a use of long-neglected presidential authorities. It says this year’s action continues the president’s commitment to protecting taxpayers from spending the administration considers harmful.

Watchdog says no

The Government Accountability Office, which watches how government money is spent, has raised concerns. This nonpartisan agency says the move illegally sidesteps the Constitution’s separation of powers.

The GAO explains that if Congress wanted presidents to have this kind of authority, lawmakers would need to change the law. As it stands, the GAO believes this application of the Impoundment Control Act goes beyond its intended scope.

What happens next?

Legal challenges are already underway. California and six other states sued the Trump administration, arguing that withholding congressionally approved funds violates the Constitution’s separation-of-powers, appropriations, and presentment requirements.

Last year’s similar move also faced court battles, and the Supreme Court allowed some foreign-aid funds to remain withheld while litigation continued. The broader legality of pocket rescissions remains unresolved in the courts.

Impact on Congress

Some experts worry this move could make it harder for lawmakers to compromise on spending bills. If presidents can cancel funding after agreements are reached, why would anyone bother negotiating in good faith?

Bobby Kogan from the Center for American Progress says Congress could respond by reappropriating the same funds in the next budget cycle. That wouldn’t guarantee the money gets spent, but it would show lawmakers won’t back down easily.

Want to see how other big federal moves are playing out? Check out how Trump’s Oklahoma aluminum smelter project draws fresh attention.

The bigger picture

At its heart, this debate is about who controls the federal purse strings. The Constitution gives Congress the power to decide how taxpayer money gets spent, but presidents have tried to push those boundaries over the years.

Whatever happens next, this $810 million rescission highlights ongoing tensions between the executive and legislative branches. It’s a reminder that even budget decisions can raise big questions about how our government should work.

Curious how other administration moves are being tested on the ground? See how Nebraska disaster roundtable tests Trump administration’s FEMA reform claims.

What do you think about the president’s power to cancel approved funding? Share your thoughts in the comments.

This slideshow was made with AI assistance and human editing.

Read More From This Brand:

• Idaho wildfire smoke pushes Boise air quality into dangerous levels
• Western states say FEMA still favors hurricanes over wildfire response
• Nevada Washoe fire emergency tests evacuation and federal firefighting support