Late in the afternoon on Friday, September 25, 2026, President Trump announced the cancellation of $810 million in spending across several agencies. The use of the phrase “pocket rescission” in White House messaging made its intentions explicit: the administration seeks to block appropriated spending that Congress passed and that Trump signed into law. 

The administration did not issue the rescission until after the House announced on September 16 that it would be out of session until November. Because there has been no announcement that the House will return to Washington to vote on rescissions, the spending is set to expire at the end of the fiscal year on September 30. The administration used the same maneuver in 2025 to freeze $4 billion of foreign aid spending until the funds expired and faced no consequences for doing so. 

The spending that the administration highlighted on Friday is wasteful and unnecessary, with social services better suited to charity and civil society than taxpayers. Congress should not have appropriated funds for these purposes to begin with. However, the executive branch’s unilateral cancellation of spending is concerning, as is the lack of a meaningful response from the majorities in the House and Senate. Congress consistently fails in its responsibility to manage the federal budget, but it can still reclaim its authority if it has the will to do so.

The Impoundment Control Act and Pocket Rescissions

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution vests federal spending power with Congress. In response to President Nixon repeatedly refusing to spend (impounding) funds for agencies and programs he disliked, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). The ICA created guardrails to limit executive discretion to not spend appropriated funds, while still allowing an administration to address potentially wasteful spending.

The ICA created a procedure whereby the president can send a special message to Congress requesting the cancellation (rescission) of selected appropriations. This allows the administration to freeze those funds for 45 days of continuous congressional session. During this period, Congress can produce legislation to enact rescissions it agrees with. The ICA gives such legislation privileged treatment, with expedited procedures and no filibuster in the Senate. An example of this occurred in 2025, when Congress approved roughly $9 billion in rescissions. 

If Congress does not pass legislation to affirm the rescissions, spending must resume at the end of the 45-day period. The ICA authorizes the Comptroller General to sue the administration if spending does not resume in such a scenario. However, the ICA does not discuss what happens if an administration begins the rescissions process with fewer than 45 continuous session days left in the fiscal year. In this scenario, the default flips, and congressional inaction leads to spending remaining frozen until the end of the fiscal year, then expiring. This is known as a pocket rescission.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has determined that pocket rescissions are illegal under the ICA. However, because the ICA statute does not directly address pocket rescissions, administrations face no consequences for using the maneuver. The Trump administration announced the rescission message at the end of a workweek, mere days before the end of the fiscal year, and openly calling it a pocket rescission flouts the shortcomings of the ICA. 

The First Branch’s Budgetary Duty

While the administration’s latest actions are improper, the true fault for the situation lies with Congress. Experts and legislators have discussed the pocket rescission concept for decades, yet Congress has never taken the opportunity to amend the ICA. This is part of a long-term trend of Congress shirking its responsibility to manage federal finances.

Although it appears too late for Congress to stop the latest pocket rescission, legislators should begin work as soon as possible on reforming the ICA. This could include:

• Preventing administrations from issuing rescission messages and freezing funds after a certain date, or automatically releasing frozen funds 30 days before their expiration date. Administrations working in good faith would still be able to identify wasteful spending and work with Congress on savings.
• Creating automatic referrals to the GAO for instances of administration officials failing to disburse appropriated funds, along with consequences if officials are found to have violated the ICA.

The administration’s stated justification for using pocket rescissions is to prevent wasteful spending. Indeed, the federal government is rife with waste and inefficiency. However, that is no excuse for Congress to tolerate executive branch power grabs. Congress should be no more willing to let a president unilaterally cancel spending it approved than to let a president unilaterally increase spending without its approval, such as President Biden’s attempts at costly student loan forgiveness. A president’s ability to disburse or cancel funds requires authorization from Congress. 

Congress has the power and responsibility to authorize and manage all aspects of federal spending. It should start acting like it.