White House Moves to Withhold $810 Million Approved by Congress, Setting Up Spending-Power Dispute

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration told Congress on Friday that it intends to cancel $810 million in federal spending lawmakers had already approved, invoking a contested budget maneuver five days before the end of the fiscal year.

The White House said the targeted programs include services for migrants, education and housing initiatives, minority-owned business support, health research and international assistance. The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, described the package as an effort to stop spending it considers harmful. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, called it an unlawful attempt to bypass Congress.

The dispute turns on who has the authority to cancel enacted spending. Congress controls federal appropriations. A president may ask Congress to rescind, or cancel, funds under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. The administration’s approach seeks to hold the money back so close to Sept. 30 that some of it could expire before lawmakers finish the review period provided by the law. The Government Accountability Office, an independent congressional watchdog, says that use of the statute is not permitted.

The White House describes the money as canceled. Its ability to make that cancellation effective without Congress’s consent, however, is precisely what is contested. The $810 million is the amount in the administration’s package, not a court-confirmed total of lawful savings.

What the White House targeted

The largest share of the proposed cancellations concerns HHS programs that the White House says provide services to refugees, asylum seekers and other noncitizens. Reporting on the administration’s announcement puts that portion at $567 million. The package also targets other immigration-related programs, education grants, housing initiatives and programs that the administration characterizes as focused on race or diversity.

The proposed cuts extend across several agencies. Accounts of the White House notice identify spending at the departments of Commerce, Education, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, and Justice, as well as international assistance programs. The affected items have different purposes and recipients; describing the whole package as a single immigration cut would obscure its wider reach.

Some reports round the amount to “nearly $1 billion.” Collins and other accounts of the notice specify $810 million. The precise figure is more useful for understanding what the White House submitted; “nearly $1 billion” is a characterization, not a separate funding package.

The White House said Trump is “committed to utilizing all possible tools to cut wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens.” It argues that some of the targeted programs support illegal immigration, promote what it considers divisive racial policies or back environmental approaches it opposes. Those are the administration’s assessments of the programs, not independent findings that the spending violates the law.

At the time of this report, the publicly available accounts do not establish that every intended recipient has already lost access to its funds. The practical effects will depend on the specific appropriations involved, when those funds were due to expire, what had already been committed and how the legal dispute develops.

Why the timing matters

Under the Impoundment Control Act, a president can send Congress a proposal to rescind budget authority. The law permits the administration to withhold the proposed funds temporarily while Congress considers the request, for up to 45 days of continuous congressional session. If Congress does not enact the cancellation within the required period, the money must generally be made available for its intended use.

A “pocket rescission” attempts to exploit the calendar. The president submits a request close enough to a fiscal-year deadline that the money may expire before Congress has the full opportunity to decide whether to cancel it. This request arrived Sept. 25; the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30.

That short gap is the core of the controversy. If a president could permanently prevent appropriated money from being spent simply by making a late request, Congress’s failure to approve a cancellation would no longer protect the original appropriation.

GAO has concluded that the law does not allow that result. In its published legal analysis, the watchdog said funds proposed for rescission must be made available for prudent use before they expire if Congress has not approved their cancellation, even when the 45-day review period extends beyond the funds’ expiration date.

The administration is asserting a different view of its authority. No final judicial ruling specific to Friday’s $810 million package was identified in the reporting available as of Saturday morning. Calling the maneuver conclusively lawful or unlawful on the basis of the announcement alone would go beyond what has been resolved.

Congress’s response

Collins said Congress received the package “without warning or consultation.” In a statement reported Friday and Saturday, she accused OMB of having withheld the funds for months to set up their cancellation near the fiscal-year deadline. That is her allegation; the reporting reviewed here does not independently establish the timing or handling of each underlying appropriation.

“The independent Government Accountability Office has concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act,” Collins said. She pledged to work with colleagues to address what she called illegal actions.

Her objection is significant because she chairs the Senate committee responsible for writing spending legislation and belongs to Trump’s party. The opposition is therefore not confined to Democrats or to organizations that might lose funding. It reflects a dispute between the executive branch and lawmakers over Congress’s constitutional spending role.

The White House, for its part, frames the action as an obligation to taxpayers rather than a challenge to Congress. It says the targeted programs do not merit continued funding. That policy argument is distinct from the legal question: even if a president opposes a program, the issue is whether the executive branch may cancel money Congress already enacted without another law.

What is known, and what remains unsettled

The White House has announced an $810 million package and invoked the rescission process. The major program areas and objections from Collins are public. GAO’s legal position on pocket rescissions is also documented.

Several consequential details remain unresolved. The reporting available by Saturday morning does not establish a definitive program-by-program accounting of funds already committed, all recipients affected, or the amount that would actually go unspent if the administration’s position prevails. Nor does the announcement itself establish whether a court will intervene before the funds expire.

The words “approved funding” also require care. Congress authorizes agencies to obligate money under specified laws; that does not mean every dollar has already been paid to a grantee or contractor. A decision to block unobligated funding can prevent planned work without reversing payments already made. The consequences will vary across programs.

The administration used the pocket-rescission approach before. In 2025, the Supreme Court declined to block its use to withhold $4.9 billion in approved foreign aid while litigation continued. That interim action should not be read as a final Supreme Court ruling that all pocket rescissions are lawful.

The earlier dispute helps explain why Friday’s announcement carries weight beyond $810 million. If the executive branch can repeatedly wait until appropriations are near expiration and then withhold them without a congressional vote, the practice could shift practical control over some enacted spending from lawmakers to the president. That is an implication of the dispute, not a finding that the administration has already established such a power.

Why the cuts matter

For organizations expecting federal support, timing can determine whether a program can operate. An agency or grant recipient may need to commit funds before a legal deadline to hire staff, award grants or pay for services. A late-year withholding can therefore affect activity even if a legal challenge eventually succeeds.

The range of targeted programs also broadens the potential consequences. Immigration services and assistance to children or refugees raise questions about the continuity of support. Education and housing funding can affect local programs. Research and business-development funds may involve grants with their own schedules and obligations. The available reporting does not support a single estimate of how many people or organizations would be affected.

The institutional stakes are clearer. Congress enacted the spending at issue; the administration wants it stopped. The disagreement is about both the merits of those programs and the procedure for changing them after passage.

Congress can lawfully cancel previously appropriated funding by passing a rescission bill. It can also change future spending through the normal appropriations process. The White House’s Friday action is controversial because it seeks a result without first obtaining that new legislative approval.

What happens next

The immediate deadline is Sept. 30, when the current federal fiscal year ends. That leaves only days for Congress, oversight officials, potential plaintiffs and the administration to respond before at least some of the money may expire under the White House’s interpretation.

Lawmakers could seek more information about the affected accounts, use the appropriations process to challenge the maneuver or pursue legislation. Affected parties could consider litigation. GAO may examine whether the administration has complied with the Impoundment Control Act. Those are possible responses, not announced outcomes or scheduled court actions specific to this package.

For now, the most accurate description is that the Trump administration has moved to withhold $810 million that Congress approved and says it can use a late rescission request to cancel the spending. A leading Republican appropriator and GAO reject the claimed authority. Whether the proposed cancellations withstand challenge, and what services actually lose money, remains to be determined.