The Trump administration is using the rescission process to refuse expenditures that Congress has directed.
Posted by The Lawfare Podcast, Checked
- Sources
- 2 contradict4 support
- Said
- 1 time·
- Confidence
- 90%
The Lawfare PodcastOct 8, 2026
The sources confirm the administration used a 'pocket rescission' in late September 2026 to cancel about $810 million in funds Congress had appropriated, so the funds would expire unspent. The GAO and others say this was unlawful, but the claim's core factual assertion, that the rescission process was used to withhold congressionally directed spending, is supported as of 2026-10-08.
This claim is about the present, so it is judged as of the day it was checked.
What was said
… defying the congressional, ah, structure, but another way to do it is to use this rescission process, which was made as a, created as a kind of was you, we used to call it the line item veto, and it was made as a way of getting rid of wasteful expenditures, but now it's being used as a device to basically refuse the expenditures that Congress has directed. There's a problem with it, which is that it requires congressional response by the nature of the constitutional authority at issue, and so the pocket rescission is a way to circumvent that requirement that Congress gets to respond by doing it right at the …
The Lawfare Podcast · · from the transcriptPost →What we found
Supports. Reuters and AP report that Trump used a 'pocket rescission' to cancel about $810 million in spending approved by Congress, with the AP noting the cuts targeted 11 appropriations accounts.[1][2]
Supports. The Harvard Law School piece describes the 2026 move as a pocket rescission cancelling $810 million in congressionally appropriated spending, placing it within the Impoundment Control Act's rescission framework.[3]
Supports. Politico reports Trump 'unilaterally nixed' $810 million in funds Congress enacted for specific programs using the pocket rescission tactic, and that Congress could not act in time before the funds expired.[4]
Contradicts. The GAO ruled that withholding the funds beyond their expiration was unlawful, but this disputes legality, not whether the administration used the rescission process to withhold the funds.[1][5][6]
Context. The administration argues that a rescission request sent less than 45 days before the fiscal year ends lets the funds expire, a legal interpretation lawmakers contest. The claim's 'refuse' framing is accurate to the act but does not settle the legal dispute.[4]
Sources
6 sources: 2 fact-checkers, 1 primary, 1 tier 2, 1 tier 1, 1 not rated
- 1Watchdog says Trump can't cancel more than $800M in spending approved by Congressapnews.com · fact-checker · cited for: contradicts, supports
- 2California, six other states sue Trump administration over federal fundsreuters.com · fact-checker · cited for: supports
- 3Can presidents cancel spending approved by Congress?hls.harvard.edu · primary source · cited for: supports
- 4Republicans scheme to block Trump’s funding cancellationspolitico.com · tier 2 · cited for: supports, context
- 5Government watchdog asserts Donald Trump's $810 million ...thehill.com · tier 1 · cited for: contradicts
- 6Federal watchdog: Trump canceling $810M in government funding ...ksl.com · not rated · cited for: contradicts
Where this claim was made
Said in 1 published post
Related claims
- The Trump administration performed a pocket rescission of $800 million across multiple programs.True
- The Trump administration has been canceling grants and using other tools to avoid spending money it does not want to spend.True
- The Trump administration requested a pocket rescission of $810 million in federal funding.True
- The Trump administration previously used a pocket rescission maneuver for about $4 billion in foreign assistance funds.True
- The Trump administration sent Congress a request to cancel $810 million in federal funding on September 25, 2026.True