The White House on Friday evening announced plans to block $810 million in congressionally appropriated funding, setting up another confrontation with lawmakers over presidential spending authority and the limits of executive power.
The move revives a controversial budget maneuver known as a pocket rescission, a tactic that allows a president to submit a request to Congress to cancel funding so close to the end of the fiscal year that the money can expire before lawmakers have the full 45-day review period required under federal law. The administration cited the Impoundment Control Act as the legal basis for the action, but the Government Accountability Office has said the law does not permit the executive branch to withhold proposed rescissions through expiration if Congress has not approved them.
The announcement immediately drew criticism from Capitol Hill, particularly from Sen. Susan Collins, the Maine Republican who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee. In a statement posted on X, Collins said the move was "the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse." She added that the GAO had concluded pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act, warning that "any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law."
The White House and Collins' office did not immediately respond to requests for comment from CNBC.
The funding targeted in the latest proposal includes $567 million appropriated for Health and Human Services programs serving refugees, asylees and other non-citizens, along with $28 million for HHS research. Additional cuts would hit the Department of Education's special programs for immigrant students, among other accounts. While the administration has not laid out a full public accounting of every line item affected, the scope of the proposed rescission underscores the political sensitivity of the issue, touching programs tied to immigration, public health and education.
The latest clash comes a year after President Donald Trump's administration blocked $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid through a pocket rescission, the first time in roughly half a century that a president attempted to use the authority. That earlier move set off a legal and political dispute over whether the White House could effectively run out the clock on spending authority already approved by Congress. Friday's announcement suggests the administration is again willing to test those boundaries.
At the center of the dispute is a fundamental question of constitutional power: whether the executive branch can unilaterally prevent spending that Congress has already enacted. Appropriations are one of Congress's most important tools, and the Impoundment Control Act was designed to limit a president's ability to simply decline to spend money lawmakers had approved. Supporters of the administration's approach argue that the rescission request is a lawful attempt to reduce spending and force a review of programs they view as unnecessary or misaligned with administration priorities. Critics say the tactic is an end run around Congress that risks hollowing out the legislative branch's authority.
The timing of the announcement is also significant. By submitting a rescission request near the end of the fiscal year, the White House is effectively betting that the funds will lapse before Congress can complete its review, leaving lawmakers with little practical ability to act. That is precisely why the maneuver is so controversial, and why budget watchdogs and congressional appropriators have long viewed it as an abuse of process.
The dispute is likely to intensify as lawmakers weigh not only the legality of the maneuver, but also the broader precedent it could set for future administrations. If allowed to stand, the tactic could give presidents a powerful tool to sidestep appropriations decisions without securing congressional approval. For now, the White House's latest attempt to claw back funding has reopened a familiar fight over spending power, legal authority and the balance between the executive and legislative branches.