Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition
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.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How California draws congressional districts, and why it might change in a proxy war with Trump
The potential redrawing of California's congressional district lines could upend the balance of power in Washington, D.C., in next year's midterm congressional election. The unusual and unexpected redistricting may take place in coming months because of sparring among President Trump, Texas Gov. Greg Abbott and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. Redrawing these maps — known as redistricting — is an esoteric practice that many voters tune out, but one that has an outsized impact on political power and policy in the United States. Here is a breakdown about why a process that typically occurs once every decade is currently receiving so much attention — and the potential ramifications. What is redistricting? There are 435 members of the U.S. House of Representatives, each of whom is supposed to represent roughly the same number of constituents. Every decade, after the U.S. Census counts the population across the nation, the allocation of congressional representatives for each state can change. For example, after the 2020 census, California's share of congressional districts was reduced by one for the first time in state history. Read more: California to lose a congressional seat, according to new census data After the decennial census, states redraw district lines for congressional and legislative districts based on population shifts, protections for minority voters required by the federal Voting Rights Act and other factors. For much of the nation's history, such maps were created by state legislators and moneyed interests in smoke-filled backrooms. Many districts were grossly gerrymandered — contorted — to benefit political parties and incumbents, such as California's infamous 'Ribbon of Shame,' a congressional district that stretched in a reed-thin line 200 miles along the California coast from Oxnard to the Monterey County line. But in recent decades, political-reform organizations and some elected officials, notably former California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, called for independent drawing of district lines. In 2010, the state's voters overwhelmingly approved a ballot measure requiring California congressional maps to be drawn by a bipartisan commission, which it did in 2011 and 2021. Read more: Latino political power is a big winner in California's new congressional map Why are we talking about this? President Trump recently urged Texas lawmakers to redraw its congressional districts to increase the number of GOP members of the House in next year's midterm election. Congress is closely divided, and the party that does not control the White House traditionally loses seats in the body two years after the presidential election. Trump has been able to enact his agenda — from deporting undocumented immigrants to extending tax breaks that largely benefit the wealthy to closing some Planned Parenthood clinics — because the GOP controls the White House, the Senate and the House. But if Democrats flip Congress, Trump's agenda will likely be stymied and he faces the prospect of being a lame duck during his last two years in office. What is Texas doing? Texas Gov. Greg Abbott called his state's Legislature into special session last week to discuss the disastrous floods that killed more than 130 people as well as redistricting before the 2026 election. Trump and his administration urged Abbott to redraw his state's congressional lines with the hope of picking up five seats. Read more: Texas Republicans aim to redraw House districts at Trump's urging, but there's a risk Abbott has said that his decision to include redistricting in the special session was prompted by a court decision last year that said the state no longer has to draw 'coalition districts' that are made up of multiple minority communities. New district lines would give Texans greater opportunity to vote for politicians who best represent them, the governor said in interviews. Democrats in the Lone Star state's Legislature met with Newsom in Sacramento on Friday to discuss the ramifications of mid-decade redistricting and accused Trump of trying to rig next year's midterm election to hold onto power. Republicans 'play by a different set of rules and we could sit back and act as if we have some moral authority and watch this 249-, 250-year-old experiment be washed away,' Newsom said of the nation's history. 'We are not going to allow that to happen.' Democratic lawmakers in Texas have previously fled the state to not allow the Legislature to have a quorum, such as in 2021 during a battle over voting rights. But with the deadly flooding, this is an unlikely prospect this year. Why is California in the mix? The Golden State's congressional districts are drawn by an independent commission focused on logical geography, shared interests, representation for minority communities and other facets. If the state reverts to partisan map drawing, redistricting experts on both sides of the aisle agree that several GOP incumbents in the 52-member delegation would be vulnerable, either because of more Democratic voters being placed in their districts, or being forced into face-offs with fellow Republican members of Congress. There are currently nine Republican members of the delegation, a number that could shrink to three or four, according to political statisticians. Read more: California Democrats may target GOP congressional districts to counter Texas Strange bedfellows These dizzying developments have created agreement among rivals while dividing former allies. Sara Sadhwani, a member of the 2021 redistricting commission and longtime supporter of independent map drawing, said she supports Democratic efforts to change California's congressional districts before the midterm election. "I stand by the work of the commission of course. We drew fair and competitive maps that fully abided by federal laws around the Voting Rights Act to ensure communities of color have an equal opportunity at the ballot box," said Sadhwani, a politics professor at Pomona College. "That being said, especially when it comes to Congress, most certainly California playing fair puts Democrats at a disadvantage nationally." She said the best policy would be for all 50 states to embrace independent redistricting. But in the meantime, she supports Democratic efforts in California to temporarily redraw the districts given the stakes. "I think it's patriotic to fight against what appears to be our democracy falling into what appears to be authoritarian rule," Sadhwani said. Charles Munger Jr., the son of a late billionaire who was Warren Buffet's right-hand man, spent more than $12 million to support the ballot measure that created the independent redistricting commission and is invested in making sure that it is not weakened. "He's very much committed to making sure the commission is preserved," said someone close to Munger who requested anonymity to speak candidly. Munger believes "this is ultimately political quicksand and a redistricting war at the end of day is a loss to American voters." Munger, who was the state GOP's biggest donor at one point, is actively involved in the California fight and is researching other efforts to fight gerrymandering nationwide, this person said. The state Democratic and Republican parties, which rarely agree on anything, agreed in 2010 when they opposed the ballot measure. Now, Democrats, who would likely gain seats if the districts are redrawn by state lawmakers, support a mid-decade redistricting, while the state GOP, which would likely lose seats, says the state should continue having lines drawn by the independent commission once every decade. "It's a shame that Governor Newsom and the radical Left in Sacramento are willing to spend $200 million on a statewide special election, while running a deficit of $20 billion, in order to silence the opposition in our state," the GOP congressional delegation said in a statement on Friday. "As a Delegation we will fight any attempt to disenfranchise California voters by whatever means necessary to ensure the will of the people continues to be reflected in redistricting and in our elections." What happens next? If Democrats in California move forward with their proposal, which is dependent on what Texas lawmakers do during their special legislative session that began last week, they have two options: State lawmakers could vote to put the measure before voters in a special election that would likely be held in November — a costly prospect. The last statewide special election — the unsuccessful effort to recall Newsom in 2021 — cost more than $200 million, according to the secretary of state's office. The Legislature could also vote to redraw the maps, but this option would likely be more vulnerable to legal challenge. Either scenario is expected to be voted on as an urgency item, which requires a 2/3 vote but would insulate the action from being the subject of a referendum later put in front of voters that would delay enactment. The Legislature is out of session until mid-August. Times staff writer Taryn Luna in Sacramento contributed to this report. Get the L.A. Times Politics newsletter. Deeply reported insights into legislation, politics and policy from Sacramento, Washington and beyond, in your inbox twice per week. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
USA Today
12 minutes ago
- USA Today
Ebooks are on the line as Congress considers future of library funding
Like checking out library ebooks? Congress, Trump could make it harder by cutting federal funding for libraries. CROFTON, Maryland ‒ Claire Holahan, 34, takes her toddler to the library once or twice a week for story time, so she can play with other children and the library's toys. It's not until after bedtime that she has time to click open her own ebook, downloaded from the library. "I don't want to have a collection (of paper books). It seems kind of wasteful … I'd rather just take it out from the library and then somebody else borrows it and gets to enjoy it," she said. Holahan is among millions of Americans who could lose ebook access from their local library under the budget bill the House is currently considering. At Trump's request, it eliminates federal funding for libraries and museums, which is often used to fund ebooks among other services. Without ebooks through the local library "I would have a hard time reading as many books as I do," Holahan said. States' libraries to lose as much as half their funding The Institute for Museum and Library Services, a tiny, little known federal agency, provides grants to states, accounting for between 30% and 50% of state library budgets, according to the Chief Officers of State Library Agencies. For decades it has distributed hundreds of millions of dollars in congressionally approved funds through grants to state libraries in all 50 states and Washington, D.C. and to library, museum and archives programs. It serves 35,000 museums and 123,000 libraries across the country, according to its website. The impact of losing the money will be different in each state because each one spends its portion of the funding differently. Some will have to fire staff and end tutoring and summer reading programs. Others will cut access to electronic databases, end intra-library loans or reduce access to books for the deaf and blind. Many will have to stop providing internet service for rural libraries or ebook access statewide. With the expectation that Congress won't buck Trump and fund the IMLS, the future of these backbone "compassionate" library services is now under discussion across the nation, said John Chrastka, founder of EveryLibrary, a nonprofit that organizes grassroot campaigns for library funding and blocking book bans. It isn't clear whether states will be able to fill the gap left if federal funding ends, especially with other responsibilities the Trump administration is passing off to the states, like requiring them to pick up a larger share of Medicaid costs and a percentage of food assistance benefits for the first time, along with changing education and disaster funding. 'We cannot possibly at the State Library save our way out of an $8 million hole,' said California State Librarian Greg Lucas. 'The state's budget isn't in real great shape on its own and so the badness is compounded by these actions by the federal government. It's kind of: OK, where are we going to go? There aren't any easy answers to this.' The institute 'shall be eliminated' On March 14 Trump issued an executive order eliminating the Institute of Museum and Library Services 'to the maximum extent consistent with applicable law.' The order states that the Institute must be reduced to its "statutory functions.' It also requires that 'non-statutory components and functions … shall be eliminated.' The proposed budget would cut federal funding for libraries and museums from nearly $300 million to $5.5 million. The agency's budget justification says the remaining money is for "sunsetting" or ending the agency. Requests for comment about the cuts sent to an IMLS spokesperson and to the Labor Department where acting IMLS Director Keith Sonderling is Deputy Secretary of Labor were not answered. After the majority of IMLS staff were laid off in late March, state libraries in California, Connecticut and Washington were abruptly told that their state grants had been canceled and received almost no other information. Panicked, Mississippi temporarily halted ebook lending so it wouldn't be accountable for the cost while the future of funding was in doubt. The state grants for California, Connecticut and Washington were restored May 5. Then came another letter from IMLS telling states that they were only getting 50% of their allocated funding. To get the rest, they needed to fill out a questionnaire about how the libraries were complying with Trump's executive orders on Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, how they were supporting American's education needs and America's 250th anniversary. On April 4, 21 states sued in federal court saying that Trump can't end the agency without permission from Congress. The judge ordered IMLS to reinstate grants and staff until the case is heard. Congress, which must approve the agency's shutdown, had been scheduled to discuss its funding in late July, but pushed it off until after their summer recess ends in September. Struggling to afford ebooks, despite 'huge appetite from the public' Losing the money for ebooks would be particularly hard for states, Hoboken (New Jersey) Public Library Director Jennie Pu told USA TODAY. Interest in ebooks spiked during the pandemic, she said, but digital copies of books cost far more than paper and licensing agreements come with strings. Libraries pay three to five times as much for an ebook than what they cost in a private sale. Anecdotally, Pu said, some cost $70 per title. Some major publishers lease ebooks to libraries for two years, with the limit that only one patron can check out each digital copy at a time. Other licensing agreements expire after a set number of checkouts or are a mix of the two methods. 'We're spending more and more money in our budgets towards ebooks. There is a huge appetite from the public,' said Pu, adding that her library saw a 20% increase in ebook usage this year. 'We are so committed to meeting that need from the public and our challenge is we don't have an unlimited source of funds." In May, the Connecticut legislature passed a law aimed at reducing the cost of ebooks to libraries. New Jersey and other states have introduced similar legislation. California hopes to spend as much of its remaining federal funding as possible putting more ebooks into its 300,000-item statewide catalog, Lucas, the state librarian, said. The goal is to make sure that the 8,700 people in Modoc County, one of the least populous places in the state, have access to the same ebooks and audio books that are available to the 9.6 million people in Los Angeles County ‒ home to the second largest library system in the country, Lucas said. Part of what the State Library still needs to do is figure out how to pay the yearly $146,000 in platform fees to keep providing access to the ebooks and audiobooks it has. And, it's hoping to save some of the other services normally funded by the federal grant, like the California Revealed program, which digitizes audio, video, photos and newspapers to preserve state history, Lucas said. Because federal money is distributed based on population, his state has the most to lose ‒ roughly $15 million, according to Lucas. 'We're operating under the assumption there'll be no federal money to support us," he said. 'Always on his Kindle' At the Crofton Community Library in Maryland, patrons are greeted by boxes of free fresh vegetables. Dozens of house plants decorate the shelves and window sills, absorbing the light from windows that run from the tops of bookshelves to the ceiling. A buzz fills the room from kids working on an art activity for the summer reading program, which Maryland's State Library helps fund with its federal grant. Adult patrons talk with the librarians or with one another at broad wooden tables. Amanda Kelly, 30, of Crofton told USA TODAY that every time her family moves to a new Air Force station she immediately finds the local library to begin building their new community. Her children played in a garden outside as they waited for a summer reading event to start. Her husband is "always on his Kindle" reading library eBooks, she said, while she prefers paper copies. "I don't agree with cutting funding for libraries at all, never," she said. "That stinks." Other patrons said they check out audio books for friends, use the library for its social aspects or attend classes there, ranging from chair yoga to how to avoid online scams. Only one of the dozen people who spoke to USA TODAY knew that the federal library funding might be cut. Marquita Graham, 42, of Upper Marlboro told USA TODAY she often brings a group of children, including several with special needs, to the Crofton library for story time, as well as to use the computers and read-along audio books. "I'm shocked," she said. Ending library services "would be sad." We want to hear from people affected by or who have knowledge of the Trump administration's efforts to reshape the government, including actions by DOGE. Know something others should? Reach out at swire@ or Signal at sarahdwire.71
Chicago Tribune
12 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Gov. Pritzker needs to veto this pension bill. Chicago can't afford it.
Memo to Springfield: Chicago is broke. Gov. JB Pritzker has a bill on his desk that would sweeten pension benefits for Chicago's police and firefighters hired in 2011 or later, to the tune of $60 million more out of the city budget in 2027 alone and more than $11 billion over the next three decades, according to the city's own projections. The measure passed unanimously in both chambers at the end of the spring session, allowing for next to no debate and, astoundingly, was supported by every Chicago House member and senator. At the time of the bill's passage, we wrote that the entire Chicago delegation had effectively had voted to increase property taxes on their constituents. Property taxes, of course, are the main means municipalities have of financing their pension obligations to their workers. Interestingly, the governor acknowledged the conundrum last week. Asked about the bill, he said, 'One thing to consider, of course, is the finances of the city of Chicago. How will they pay for it?' The other important consideration, he said, was ensuring Chicago's first responders are 'well taken care of.' We're glad to see Pritzker explicitly state why he's mulling whether to veto despite the strange prospect of rejecting legislation that passed without a single dissenting vote. By asking rhetorically if Chicago can 'pay for it,' the governor has answered his own question. Of course Chicago can't pay for it. The police and fire pension funds have a mere 25% of the assets needed to meet their current and future obligations as it stands. Since we wrote about this measure in June, the city has estimated what it would do for its woefully underfunded first-responder funds. That percentage would drop to an almost unfathomably low 18%. To those who say it's nonsensical to veto a bill with such overwhelming support, remember that GOP lawmakers mainly went along because of the Chicago delegation's unanimous backing and the fact that only Chicagoans' taxes would be affected. All the Chicago Democrats who voted yes could justify reversing their positions by saying (truthfully) they didn't have the city's projections on just how much these changes would cost taxpayers. Chicago taxpayers already are chewing their nails wondering how the city will plug a 2026 budget deficit exceeding $1 billion. The following year looks even worse. Pritzker already tossed an $80 million hot potato in Chicago's lap with his 2023 initiative to phase out the state's 1% tax on groceries, the proceeds of which had been distributed to municipalities. More than 200 municipalities have approved their own 1% grocery taxes, as the state allows them to do. Mayor Brandon Johnson wants the City Council to do the same for Chicago, which must happen by a state-set deadline of Oct. 1. There are no guarantees, given Johnson's fraught relationship with the council and Chicagoan's understandable resistance to tax hikes of any sort, that aldermen will do as he wishes. Meanwhile, this pension time bomb would cost the city nearly as much as repeal of the grocery tax and in the future will cost far more. Speaking of the mayor, while he has spoken tepidly against this bill, he ought to be forcefully urging Pritzker to veto it and Chicago lawmakers to vote to sustain that veto, despite their earlier support of the measure. The city essentially has been missing in action on this issue, and Johnson apparently is struggling to balance his political brand as an ardent union backer with his duty to Chicago taxpayers. This is no time for such timidity. At this stage, it's worth laying out the origins of this bill. In 2010, in a bid to reform Illinois' public-sector pensions, the state created a second tier of beneficiaries hired in 2011 and thereafter — so-called Tier 2 workers — whose retirement payouts were to be substantially less than the overly generous benefits of existing employees and retirees that had gotten Illinois so deeply in pension debt. Six years ago, Pritzker signed into law sweetened pension benefits for Tier 2 cops and firefighters in Illinois outside of Chicago as part of a consolidation of downstate police and fire pension funds. Ever since, Chicago police and fire unions have argued their Tier 2 workers ought to get the same treatment. In addition, proponents cite concerns that the benefits for Tier 2 workers don't rise to the level of Social Security benefits, which would violate federal law. This page has been consistent on the issue of Tier 2 pension benefits and Social Security. State policymakers should do no more than ensure they are compliant with the law and rebuff union efforts to use the Social Security argument in effect to do away with Tier 2 and pension reform altogether. As much as we appreciate and rely on Chicago's first responders, everyone who went to work for the Police or Fire departments after 2010 knew — or should have known — what their retirement benefits were. In a perfect world, their pensions would be equivalent to those earned by their counterparts outside the city. We don't live in that world. Far from it. Mayor Johnson, you should advocate for your city's beleaguered taxpayers and call on Gov. Pritzker and Chicago's Springfield delegation to do the right thing. And, Governor, adding to Chicago's fiscal crisis hurts the whole state. Whether the mayor asks or not, veto the bill.
