Latest news with #ImpoundmentControlAct
Los Angeles Times
a day ago
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
Even Clarence Thomas agreed these kinds of Trump money moves are illegal
Having prevailed in mid-July on party-line congressional votes to slash foreign assistance and zero-out public broadcasting, senior Trump administration officials immediately signaled intent to seek still more 'rescissions' of money already appropriated for the current fiscal year. Even more provocatively, they are discussing plans to engage in the cuts by flagrantly sidestepping Congress. All this comes against a backdrop of the administration's quiet withholding or slow-walking of billions of dollars for programs ranging from Head Start to medical research. This mad rush to defund public programs is deeply irresponsible. These programs serve real purposes that the administration has ignored in its haste to slash domestic spending. Comedians poked fun at Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency when it had to scramble to rehire the fired workers who keep our nuclear weapons safe. This willful ignorance took a tragic turn when the National Weather Service's Texas offices were left understaffed as catastrophic flooding and hurricane season approached. The Lancet medical journal published a study finding that the administration's rapid-fire foreign aid cuts will lead to 14 million preventable deaths by 2030 if they continue. The White House defunding marathon is also illegal. President Nixon tried very much the same thing, withholding appropriated funds from programs he disliked. Every court that considered the merits of his impoundments found them unlawful, including a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court. The president can veto spending legislation he finds excessive, but he may not sign an appropriations act and then simply refuse to implement it or appropriations signed into law before his administration. The Supreme Court made the same point again in 1998 when it struck down the Line Item Veto Act. This law authorized the president to sign funding legislation and then designate parts not to be implemented. The justices held that this was tantamount to allowing the president to amend a law, which only Congress may do. Justice Clarence Thomas joined the majority. Congress opposed Nixon's impoundments on a bipartisan basis. It did, however, give future presidents an expedited method for asking Congress to rescind funds. This Impoundment Control Act requires that Congress be notified immediately whenever the president thinks funds should not be spent and ensures Congress' timely consideration. Unfortunately, President Trump has ignored the Impoundment Control Act's mandate to promptly notify as he has withheld billions of dollars for months. In fact, in March, Trump signed a bipartisan appropriations act for the remainder of this fiscal year, and then impounded large parts of the spending he had just approved. When he finally requested congressional approval of a small fraction of his impoundments in June, Democrats understandably cried foul. The final fiscal year appropriations act had passed only because Democrats voted for it, and they did so to properly fund these and other programs. Bipartisan appropriations bills torn apart, after they've been signed into law, by party-lines rescission bills is a prescription for gridlock: Nobody is going to make a deal in the future with those who blithely go back on their word. But the administration was not done. Now Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, is planning 'pocket rescissions.' His idea is to ask Congress to rescind funds imminently due for disbursement so late in the fiscal year that the funding will expire before Congress can act. He assumes that the Impoundment Control Act authorizes the president to withhold the dollars while Congress considers this bad-faith request. But the act says just the opposite: 'Nothing contained in this Act … shall be construed as … superseding any provision of law which requires the obligation of budget authority or the making of outlays thereunder.' Unless the president can persuade Congress to change programs' funding laws, these impoundments are just as illegal as Nixon's, which the Supreme Court ruled against unanimously. Some may feel the Vought-Trump rescissions are unavoidable now that the president's tax cut bill has torn a huge hole in the deficit. But the scale is not remotely comparable. The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act's' upper-income tax cuts add $3.4 trillion to the deficit over the next decade. The rescission package that slashed foreign assistance and zeroed out public broadcasting reduced the deficit by about $8.4 billion over the same period. If Congress passed a rescission bill of a comparable size every week for the remainder of the Trump term — taking no recesses or so-called district work periods — the decreased spending would make up less than half of the deficit increase. And long before it reached that point, Congress would run out of programs that even the most zealous budget cutters could get away with rescinding out of existence. The two parties should return to the bargaining table and negotiate funding bills for next year. If either Republicans or Democrats have evidence that programs are overfunded or not working, bring that to the negotiations. But once a deal is struck, both sides need to honor it. The administration's capricious and chaotic impoundments have done more than enough damage already. David A. Super is a professor of law at Georgetown Law.
Epoch Times
4 days ago
- Business
- Epoch Times
White House Considers ‘Pocket Rescissions' to Sidestep Congress: What to Know
President Donald Trump's administration is considering a move, called a 'pocket rescission,' that would effectively rescind federal funding and potentially bypass congressional approval, Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought said on Sunday. The strategy occurs when a president submits a rescission proposal under the Impoundment Control Act—requesting Congress to cancel previously appropriated funds—within 45 days of the end of the fiscal year, Sept. 30. The funds are withheld during the 45-day congressional review period, and if Congress doesn't act before the fiscal year ends, the funds expire.
The Hill
5 days ago
- Business
- The Hill
Trump team's ‘pocket rescission' idea runs into GOP opposition
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.
The Hill
25-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
White House mulling a rare tool to block spending without Congress: What to know
Trump administration officials are weighing a controversial maneuver aimed at allowing them to block federal funding previously authorized by Congress without lawmakers' approval. White House budget chief Russell Vought said earlier this month that the gambit, known as 'pocket rescissions,' is one of the options on the table for the administration as it continues its quest to reduce federal spending. But even some Republicans are uneasy about the idea and uncertain about its legality. Here are a few things to know about the idea. What are pocket rescissions? While Congress has rescinded some federal funding over the years using legislative vehicles like the annual government spending bills, the president also has the powers to initiate a special process to yank back previously allocated funds – but lawmakers' approval is still required to approve the rescission. Earlier this month, Trump became the first president in decades to successfully claw back funds via the process, with Republicans in Congress rescinding about $9 billion in 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, the funds must be released. A pocket rescission would see the president 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. 'And then the money evaporates at the end of the fiscal year,' Vought, the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), said. The OMB director also argued recently at an event that a 'pocket rescission is no different than a normal rescission, except for the timing of when it occurs.' How do they work? Experts say the plan could allow the administration to reduce funding available to agencies without Congress' approval. 'The budget authority has lapsed, and you can never obligate it,' Bobby Kogan, a former Senate budget aide and senior director of federal budget policy at the left-leaning Center for American Progress, said in an interview. Kogan offered an example of a program that was given until the end of fiscal year 2025 to spend $10 billion, but the administration was able to withhold some of the funding later in the year under the special process. 'It is, of course, illegal to let a whole bunch of it lapse on purpose,' he argued. 'It's an illegal impoundment, but even if you did that, too late, you're out of luck, right? If you go past Sept. 30, then that money just lapses.' At the same time, in such a scenario, Kogan noted the program could see new funding allocated as part of a stopgap passed by the end of Congress to keep the government open. In such cases, Congress usually decides to keep funding at the same levels to buy time for a larger deal to hash out and approve new government funding plans. But Kogan added that while a stopgap could give the program 'another $10 billion to play with,' it still 'lost the money in 2025 that [it was] supposed to get.' Is it legal? Some experts have described the move as 'an illegal impoundment,' while others have referred to it as a 'loophole' in current budget law. In an interview, Richard Stern, a former congressional staffer and director of the Thomas A. Roe Institute for Economic Policy Studies at the conservative Heritage Foundation, said there's consensus in the legal community that the maneuver is legal, but noted 'there's been very, very few court cases adjudicating this.' He added, 'the entire process is only a half century old.' 'I think what the left is looking at, and other people are looking at, is that they think that, you know, there's open ground to fight to contest in the courts,' he said. But he also argued, 'If you're administering a program and you think there's fraud, the administration has the right to track that down and prevent fraud, which can involve holding the money for a minute while you're doing that.' Vought has viewed pocket rescissions as 'one of the executive tools' that are 'on the table' as it looks to cut some federal spending. But he added last week 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.' Democrats and other critics have described the maneuver as illegal and argue the intent of the ICA is clear. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) also said in 2018 that the ICA 'does not permit the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' 'The law doesn't say, 'Oh, you can only send up a special message in the first nine months of the year,'' Kogan said, adding, 'It doesn't say that because they were imagining that a president would send stuff up early in the year.' But he said the administration's interpretation of the law 'undermines the entire intent of the law.' 'It is a method through which [the administration] would get to impound funds against congressional intent,' Kogan said, arguing the proposed pocket rescissions strategy could be used to block funds even if Congress objects at the end of the fiscal year. 'The answer period full stop is that pocket rescissions are illegal impoundments,' he said. What can Congress do? In the event the administration does move to withhold funds through pocket rescissions in the weeks ahead, experts have noted Congress can decide to provide new funding to targeted programs as part of a government funding bill or a continuing resolution, also known as a stopgap, to keep the government open past September. But experts say further action would likely be needed to restore funding to programs lost by way of pocket rescissions. At the same time, lawmakers on both sides have raised questions about the legality of the maneuver, which even one House GOP spending cardinal went as far as to argue was 'unconstitutional.' Other experts have also argued the tactic would threaten Congress' 'power of the purse.' 'If Congress cares about its power of the purse, it needs to find ways to actually assert itself and control the flow of spending, and not just let the Office of Management and Budget decide what's actually going to get spent, and it seems like that might require joining this fight in a fairly open confrontation,' said Philip Wallach, a senior fellow focused on the 'separation of powers' at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute (AEI). 'I'm sure a lot of them are trying to de-escalate this and work things out behind the scenes before it kind of comes to that,' he said. 'But I think if we see, many tens of billions of dollars worth of pocket rescissions, that would be hard to avoid an open conflict if appropriators want to retain any relevance at all.'
The Herald Scotland
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The Herald Scotland
Trump illegally held up Head Start funding, watchdog says
The GAO found that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which oversees Head Start, broke the law by withholding previously approved funds for the program between January and mid-April. In doing so, the administration violated the Impoundment Control Act, which requires presidents to spend money allocated by Congress. Read more: A 'constitutional crisis?' Democrats, Republicans spar over Donald Trump's spending order HHS slashed Head Start's funding by more than $825 million compared to the same period last year, the GAO said, amounting to a 65% funding cut. It's the third such violation uncovered by the watchdog since the start of President Donald Trump's second term in the White House in January. In April, the Trump administration was considering zeroing out funding for Head Start altogether for the next fiscal year, USA TODAY first reported. After nationwide backlash and legal challenges, HHS reversed course on the budget proposal in May. Read more: Dem AGs sue White House to counter cuts to Head Start, Medicaid for immigrants Andrew Nixon, the chief spokesman for HHS, said the agency disputes the GAO's findings but did not explain why. "HHS did not impound Head Start funds," he said in a statement to USA TODAY. Despite the earlier issues, recent disbursements for Head Start have improved and are now comparable to the same time last year, said Yasmina Vinci, executive director for the National Head Start Association. In a statement, she did not comment directly on the GAO's impoundment accusations. "We're grateful that so many are standing up for Head Start, recognizing the vital role it plays in communities across the country," she said. Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
