Welcome to an insightful conversation on federal budgeting and appropriations law with Donald Gainsborough, a political savant and leader in policy and legislation. As the head of Government Curated, Donald brings decades of expertise to the table, offering a deep dive into the controversial strategy of “pocket rescission” recently employed by the Trump administration to withhold federal funds. In this interview, we explore the mechanics and legality of this approach, the specific targets and motivations behind the funding cuts, the bipartisan backlash it has sparked, historical context of similar actions, and the broader implications for congressional authority and government funding. Join us as we unpack these critical issues with one of the sharpest minds in the field.
Can you walk us through what a “pocket rescission” is and how it stands apart from the standard process of rescinding federal funds?
Certainly, Debora. A “pocket rescission” is a term used to describe a strategic maneuver where a president submits a rescission request to Congress late in the fiscal year, effectively freezing funds until they expire without needing congressional approval. Unlike the standard rescission process outlined in the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, where Congress has 45 days to review and act on a proposal while funds can be temporarily withheld, a pocket rescission exploits timing. By proposing it close to the fiscal year-end on September 30, the funds often lapse before Congress can meaningfully respond, allowing the executive branch to bypass legislative oversight. It’s a unilateral move that essentially cancels funding without the formal agreement of lawmakers, which is why it’s so controversial.
How does the timing of a rescission request late in the fiscal year impact its effectiveness and legality?
Timing is everything with a pocket rescission. When a request is made in late August or early September, as we’ve seen with the Trump administration’s recent $4.9 billion proposal, the funds are frozen by the Office of Management and Budget during the 45-day review period. Since this period often extends beyond September 30, when most appropriations expire, the money simply vanishes without being spent. This tactic makes the rescission effective because agencies can’t allocate the funds in time. However, it raises serious legal questions because it undermines Congress’s constitutional power of the purse, as the executive is, in effect, deciding not to spend money that lawmakers have already appropriated.
What do you see as the primary goal of the Trump administration in targeting $4.9 billion from the U.S. Agency for International Development with this rescission?
The administration’s move to target $4.9 billion from USAID seems to align with a broader agenda of reducing foreign aid spending, which has been a consistent priority for President Trump. This specific cut may reflect a desire to redirect resources or signal a policy shift away from international development programs. It’s not just about the money; it’s about reshaping federal priorities. By choosing USAID, an agency already under strain with significant staff reductions, the administration might also be testing the waters for how much pushback they’ll face on such unilateral actions, especially as they’ve hinted at using pocket rescissions before.
Why have lawmakers from both parties labeled this pocket rescission as illegal, and what legal framework are they pointing to?
Lawmakers are unified in their criticism because they see this as a direct violation of the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which was enacted to prevent presidents from unilaterally withholding funds appropriated by Congress. The Act requires that any rescission proposal be approved by Congress, and while the executive can temporarily freeze funds during the 45-day review, using timing to let funds expire without that approval is seen as an abuse of power. The Government Accountability Office has also historically ruled against such tactics, stating there’s no legal basis in the Act, Supreme Court precedent, or the Constitution for a president to shorten the availability of funds this way. Bipartisan figures argue this erodes Congress’s fundamental authority over federal spending.
Can you shed light on past instances where the Trump administration has been accused of violating impoundment laws?
Absolutely. The Trump administration has faced multiple accusations from the GAO of illegally withholding funds across various departments, including Energy, Health and Human Services, and Transportation. These cases often involved delaying or refusing to spend appropriated money without following the proper rescission process under the Impoundment Control Act. For example, in some instances, funds were held back for policy reasons without congressional consent, which the GAO flagged as unlawful. These prior violations show a pattern of testing the boundaries of executive power over budgeting, and the current pocket rescission with USAID fits into that broader narrative of challenging legislative oversight.
How are key figures in Congress responding to this latest attempt to bypass their authority on funding?
The reaction has been swift and bipartisan. Senator Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, has explicitly called this type of rescission unlawful, referencing GAO findings and emphasizing that Congress holds the power of the purse under the Constitution. Similarly, Senator Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the committee, has condemned it as an “end run around Congress,” urging colleagues to reject the strategy. While stopping it is tricky—requiring either legislative action or a court challenge—there’s clear frustration and a push to reassert congressional control. Lawmakers are also wary of the timing, with the fiscal year-end looming and broader funding battles heating up.
What role does the Office of Management and Budget play in executing a pocket rescission, and why is their involvement significant?
The Office of Management and Budget, or OMB, is central to this process because they’re the ones who direct agencies not to spend the funds during the 45-day congressional review period for a rescission proposal. In the case of a pocket rescission, OMB’s role becomes even more pivotal as they can effectively ensure the money isn’t touched until it expires at the end of the fiscal year. Their involvement is significant because it represents the executive branch’s operational arm in carrying out what many see as a circumvention of Congress. Under the Trump administration, OMB has been instrumental in past attempts to withhold funds, making their actions a lightning rod for criticism from lawmakers who feel their budgetary authority is being undermined.
Looking ahead, what is your forecast for the future of pocket rescissions and the balance of power over federal funding?
I think we’re at a critical juncture, Debora. Pocket rescissions, while rare—having not been fully executed in about 50 years—could become a more frequent tool if legal challenges or legislative reforms don’t curb them. The bipartisan backlash to this move suggests Congress might push for stronger safeguards in the Impoundment Control Act to close loopholes around timing. However, with government funding deadlines like September 30 approaching and ongoing partisan divides, the immediate future could see more friction and potential shutdowns if these tactics persist. Long-term, the balance of power over federal funding hinges on whether courts or Congress can decisively reinforce that the power of the purse remains with the legislative branch, not the executive. It’s a battle to watch closely.
