Some Republicans in Congress are uneasy about the possibility the Trump administration will use a “pocket rescission” to claw back already approved government funding as fears of a fall shutdown rise.
The Trump administration has already clawed back funds through the use of a rescissions package that passed both chambers of Congress, and some GOP lawmakers are concerned about having to vote on a second, possibly politically tougher, package of cuts.
But these lawmakers say the use of pocket rescissions, an idea floated by the White House’s budget chief that could yank back money without input from lawmakers, could create bad feelings not only with Democrats, but also with Republicans.
“Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,” said Rep. Mike Simpson (R-Idaho), a spending cardinal, this week. “So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional.”
“So we’ll see how it goes,” he said.
Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought referred to pocket rescissions as “one of the executive tools” that are “on the table” earlier this month, as the administration continues a sweeping operation aimed at reducing federal spending.
“The president was elected to get us to balance, to deal with our fiscal situation, and we’re going to use all of the tools that are there depending on the situation, and as we move through the year,” he said at an event.
However, he also noted then that the administration hasn’t yet “made a determination to use it in part because we’re making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.”
Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds through the special rescissions process, with the GOP-led Congress agreeing to pull back about $9 billion in previously allocated funding for foreign aid and public broadcasting.
The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) lays out rules governing that process and allows the administration to temporarily withhold funding for 45 days while Congress considers the request. If Congress opts not to approve the request in the timeframe, the funds must be released.
Under a pocket rescission, however, experts say the president would send the same type of request to Congress, but do so within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30. The targeted funds could then essentially be held until the clock runs out and they expire.
Vought has described the tactic as “no different than a normal rescission, except for the timing of when it occurs.”
“A pocket rescission occurs later in the end of the fiscal year, within 45 days of the time that you have to hold the funding, and then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,” he said.
But some budget experts have strongly pushed back on the budget chief’s characterization, arguing the tactic is “illegal” and undermines the intent of the ICA. The Government Accountability Office also said during Trump’s first presidential term that the law does not allow “the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.”
“It is a method through which [Vought] would get to impound funds against congressional intent,” said Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, in a recent interview.
“Pocket rescission says, ‘Well, what if I send up a request 45 days before the end of the fiscal year, then even if Congress says no, I can still end all funding for the rest of the year, right?’” he argued. “Like that’s the concept behind a pocket rescission. Profoundly illegal because it would allow you to impound funds without congressional approval, which is illegal.”
At the same time, other experts have argued impoundment law is murky on the matter and have described the tactic as a potential loophole. Some have defended the administration’s interpretation of the law and argue lawmakers would have prohibited the maneuver over the years if they wanted to.
Not all Republicans are certain about the legality of the use of pocket rescissions, however.
“I don’t know. I haven’t researched it,” Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator and former attorney, said this week when asked by reporters whether pocket rescissions were legal. “I’d prefer that we not do it that way.”
The Louisiana Republican, who has been pushing for the White House to work with Congress to get more rescissions packages out the door, instead said it “wouldn’t bother” him if the administration sent “a rescission package a week and spell out in detail what they want to propose we cut.”
There’s been concern from members on both sides of the aisle that the administration’s plans to continue to claw back federal funding with only GOP support could threaten bipartisan funding talks for fiscal 2026.
But Republican rifts over the president’s latest rescissions requests were also an issue.
The party clashed over potential cuts to programs like the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief and public broadcasting dollars that help fund not only PBS and NPR, but also local stations some Republicans say their constituents depend on.
Under the pocket rescissions strategy, experts say the administration could reduce some funding by strategically holding up appropriations set to expire at the end of the fiscal year.
If Congress chooses not to approve the administration’s request for cuts, it could still provide funding for the program as part of a deal to keep the government open past September. Congress often opts to keep government funding levels mostly the same at the start of a new fiscal year to buy time for a larger deal updating funding levels.
But experts have emphasized that would be “new funding,” noting funding an account was denied at the end of the fiscal year as part of a pocket rescission likely would not roll over into the next.
Asked whether another rescissions plan could worsen the outlook for a funding deal for fiscal 2026, House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) said this week that “the only thing that would worry me is if Congress didn’t get a chance to vote on it, that’s the key thing.”
“I don’t want to see things up here that get jammed where Congress doesn’t vote.”
Cole was asked whether he was referring to pocket rescissions.
“I don’t care procedurally what you want to call it,” he responded. “I expect Congress to vote on these things, and you know that would worry me, and I know that would worry my colleagues in the other chamber, on both sides of the aisle, certainly worry my Democratic colleagues here.”
“And there’s a lot of Republican concern about this too,” he added.
