The White House announced the rescissions on Friday, describing the package as nearly $1 billion and saying it targeted spending the administration considers wasteful or inconsistent with its priorities. The largest reduction is $567 million from Department of Health and Human Services programmes providing services to refugees, asylum seekers and other non-citizens.
The administration is using what is known as a “pocket rescission”, submitting proposed cancellations close enough to the September 30 fiscal-year deadline that the money can expire before Congress completes its normal review. The Government Accountability Office, Congress’s non-partisan watchdog, has said the Impoundment Control Act does not permit presidents to withhold rescinded funds through their expiration date without congressional approval.
Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, sharply criticised the action, saying Congress had been notified without warning or consultation. She said the Office of Management and Budget appeared to have withheld the money for months in order to execute an unlawful cancellation of appropriations approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law.
“OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding,” Collins said, adding that she would work with colleagues to address what she called illegal actions.
Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer also challenged the package, saying it stripped funding from programmes supporting children, schools, small businesses, health programmes and environmental research. House Appropriations Committee ranking Democrat Rosa DeLauro separately accused OMB of attempting to bypass Congress.
Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a president may send Congress a special message proposing that specified budget authority be rescinded. Funds covered by a valid proposal can ordinarily be withheld temporarily while Congress considers it, but lawmakers must affirmatively approve the cancellation. If they do not, the money is generally required to be made available for obligation.
The timing is central to the dispute. Friday’s announcement came five days before the fiscal year closes, making it effectively impossible for the usual 45-day congressional review period to run before the appropriations expire. The GAO has maintained that using the process this way improperly circumvents Congress’s constitutional control over federal spending.
The White House argues that Trump is exercising presidential authority under the Impoundment Control Act. It said lower illegal border crossings had reduced the need for money allocated to migrant-related services and described the targeted programmes as providing little or no benefit to US taxpayers. Those characterisations reflect the administration’s stated rationale and are disputed by opponents of the cuts.
Beyond the $567 million HHS reduction, the package includes $15 million from a Department of Homeland Security programme providing services including legal assistance and mental-health support to non-citizens, and another $10 million from DHS programmes supporting immigration legal services.
It also targets $25 million in Education Department programmes for migrant students, $70 million in international education grants and fellowships, $56 million in Housing and Urban Development housing-counselling funds and $28 million from HHS research programmes.
Other proposed cancellations include $15 million for the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service, $10 million for Minority Business Development Agency programmes, $9 million from a Treasury conservation programme involving debt relief, and $5 million from the HHS Office of Minority Health.
The White House pointed to grants previously awarded through the affected accounts, including immigration organisations and research projects dealing with health equity, transgender care and carbon emissions. It cited a 2024 court ruling against a race-based presumption used by the Minority Business Development Agency. The administration presented those examples as evidence for cancellation, while the rescission itself concerns budget authority rather than repayment of grants already spent.
