Executive Summary

• On September 25, President Trump sent House Speaker Johnson a formal rescissions request proposing 11 budget authority cuts totaling $810 million.
• By sending the request only a few days before the funding expires and withholding it through September 30 – the end of fiscal year (FY) 2026 – the administration seeks to prevent the funds from being spent even if Congress does not enact the cuts; this move is called a “pocket rescission.”
• The Government Accountability Office says the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 does not allow congressionally appropriated funds to be withheld through their expiration; the Supreme Court allowed a similar FY 2025 pocket rescission to proceed while litigation continued but did not issue a final ruling on the legality of pocket rescissions.

Introduction

On September 25, President Trump sent House Speaker Johnson a formal rescissions request proposing 11 budget authority (BA) cuts totaling $810 million. The cuts affect the Department of Commerce, the Department of Education, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Treasury. A rescission is a process by which the president temporarily withholds congressionally appropriated funds while Congress decides whether to enact legislation to permanently cancel them. What distinguishes this request from typical rescissions proposals is its timing: It was transmitted five days before the end of fiscal year (FY) 2026, when the affected funding is scheduled to expire.

The administration intends to use this timing to carry out a “pocket rescission.” By withholding the funds through September 30, it could prevent the impacted agencies from obligating the funds before they expire. The funding would then expire without Congress formally enacting the proposed cuts. The move raises questions beyond the merit of the proposed cuts: Does the rescissions process allow a president to achieve through timing what would ordinarily require Congress to enact into law? It also raises a fiscal question: How much of the $810 million would otherwise have been spent, and therefore how much would be saved?

How Do Pocket Rescissions Work?

The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) permits the president to temporarily delay the spending of congressionally appropriated BA while asking Congress to cancel it. To propose rescinding funds, the president must send Congress a special message with the proposed rescissions. This starts a 45-day clock for Congress to consider the request. If Congress enacts a rescissions package during that period, the BA is permanently canceled. If it does not, the ICA requires the funds to be made available to spend (for more on rescissions, see here).

A “pocket rescission” exploits the gap between the 45-day review period and the expiration of congressionally appropriated funding. Funding that’s available through the end of FY 2026 cannot be used to make new grants, contracts, or obligations after September 30, 2026. By submitting it just five days before the end of FY 2026, the administration seeks to withhold the funds until they expire, even though Congress will not have approved their cancellation.

The distinction matters. An agency does not necessarily have to spend every appropriated dollar. But a deliberate withholding that prevents funds from being obligated before they expire is a different act from an agency ending the year with unobligated balances in the ordinary course of administering a program.

What Would the President’s Request Cut?

The president’s request proposes to rescind $809.5 million of BA from 11 federal accounts. The largest cut is $567.4 million of the $6.3 billion appropriated in FY 2024 for the Department of Health and Human Services’ Refugee and Entrant Assistance. The next-largest rescission is $69.6 million of the $70.3 million appropriated in FY 2026 for the Department of Education’s International Education and Foreign Language: Domestic Programs. Another $56.1 million would be rescinded from the $58 million FY 2025 appropriation for the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Housing Counseling.

The Department of Health and Human Services’ Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality would lose $27.7 million of its $345 million FY 2026 appropriation, and the Department of Education’s Special Programs for Migrant Students Competitive Grants Program would lose $24.9 million of its $52 million FY 2026 appropriation.

The full $15 million FY 2025 appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security’s Alternatives to Detention-Case Management Pilot Program would be rescinded. The request would also rescind $15 million of the $20 million FY 2026 appropriation for the Department of Justice’s Community Relations Service (the Trump Administration eliminated the Community Relations Service in late 2025).

Of the $50 million FY 2026 appropriation for the Department of Commerce’s Minority Business Development Agency programs, $10 million would be rescinded, and the full $10 million FY 2025 appropriation for the Department of Homeland Security’s Citizenship and Integration Grant Program would be cut.

Proposed Rescission by Account

Federal Account	Budget Authority Rescission
Department of Health and Human Services: Refugee and Entrant Assistance	$567.4 million
Department of Education: International and Foreign Language: Domestic Programs	$69.6 million
Department of Housing and Urban Development: Housing Counseling	$56.1 million
Department of Health and Human Services: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality	$27.7 million
Department of Education: Special Programs for Migrant Students Competitive Grants Program	$24.9 million
Department of Homeland Security: Alternatives to Detention-Case Management Pilot Program	$15.0 million
Department of Justice: Community Relations Service	$15.0 million
Department of Commerce: Minority Business Development Agency programs	$10.0 million
Department of Homeland Security: Citizenship and Integration Grant Program	$10.0 million
Department of Treasury: Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act Program	$8.7 million
Department of Health and Human Services: General Departmental Management	$5.1 million
Total	$809.5 million

Source: Office of Management and Budget.

Finally, $8.7 million of the $20 million FY 2023 appropriation for the Department of Treasury’s Tropical Forest and Coral Reef Conservation Act program would be rescinded, and $5.1 million of the $625 million FY 2026 appropriation for Department of Health and Human Services’ general departmental management would be cut.

Notably, these figures represent proposed cuts to unobligated BA. The table does not show by how much they would reduce budget outlays.

Are Pocket Rescissions Legal?  

The September 25 request tests how the ICA applies when funding expires before the 45-day clock runs out. The 11 proposed rescissions all involve BA that’s available to be spent through September 30. After that date, federal agencies will be unable to enter into new contracts, grants, or other obligations using those funds. The administration’s position is that it can withhold the funds in question during the 45-day period even though it would prevent agencies from obligating them before they expire. Under this interpretation, Congress would have to act to preserve the funding, rather than to rescind it.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) disagrees with the administration’s interpretation of the ICA. In a 2018 legal opinion, GAO concluded that the ICA’s temporary withholding authority cannot be used to keep funds unavailable through their expiration. If Congress does not enact a rescissions package, GAO argues the administration must make the funds available for obligation before they expire. The disagreement is therefore over more than the length of the 45-day review period: It concerns whether a presidential request can have the practical effect of permanently canceling funding without Congress enacting legislation to do so.

The administration employed the same approach at the end of FY 2025. In August 2025, President Trump sent congressional leadership a formal rescissions package proposing 15 BA cuts totaling $4.9 billion. The funding was scheduled to expire on September 30, 2025. In response, GAO noted that the 45-day congressional review period would continue into October and reiterated its conclusion that the administration could not withhold the funds through their expiration. The administration nevertheless maintained that the ICA allowed it to keep the funds on hold during the review period.

The dispute reached the Supreme Court after a lower court ordered the administration to obligate foreign assistance funding before it expired. On September 26, 2025, the Supreme Court stayed that order for roughly $4 billion covered by the president’s rescission request, allowing the administration to continue withholding those funds while the litigation proceeded. The Court said the administration had made a sufficient preliminary showing that the ICA prevented the private organizations in the case from using the Administrative Procedure Act to enforce the appropriations. It also considered the potential effect of the lower court’s order on the executive branch’s conduct of foreign affairs. Critically, the Court expressly said its emergency order was not a final determination on the merits. It did not decide whether the ICA generally permits pocket rescissions, leaving the legality of the latest request unresolved.

Conclusion

Congress may determine whether some or all the proposed cuts are warranted and enact them in a rescissions package. The president’s request alone, however, does not permanently cancel the funding under the ordinary rescissions process. Moreover, the $810 million in BA cuts does not establish an equivalent reduction in budget outlays or the deficit. With the Supreme Court yet to decide whether the ICA permits funds to be withheld through their expiration, this request raises a question that extends beyond the 11 accounts affected: whether Congress must approve a spending cut for it to take effect, or whether the timing of a presidential request can produce the same result.