White House Considers Using ‘Pocket Recessions’ To Bypass Congress on Spending Cuts

President Trump’s administration is weighing a controversial legal tactic known as a “pocket rescission” to cancel federal spending without needing new approval from Congress.

The maneuver could ignite a major legal and political battle over executive authority and the power of the purse.

Key Facts:

  • President Trump may use “pocket rescissions” to withhold previously approved federal funds without further congressional action.
  • The tactic involves submitting a rescission request near the end of the fiscal year, allowing the funds to expire if Congress doesn’t act.
  • OMB Director Russ Vought confirmed the White House is considering this tool, which was last attempted by President Reagan in 1983.
  • Legal scholars are split, with some calling the move legal and others saying it violates the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.
  • Trump signed a $9 billion rescission bill into law in July after Congress acted before the deadline.

The Rest of The Story:

The Trump administration is looking at ways to further rein in federal spending, including a rarely used maneuver called a “pocket rescission.”

This approach leverages a legal window under the Impoundment Control Act that allows the president to propose cutting funds within 45 days of the fiscal year’s end.

If Congress fails to act in that time, the funds simply expire—essentially canceling them without a formal vote.

Russ Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, told CNN that “It’s very possible that we might use pocket rescissions. It’s one of our executive tools. It’s been used before.”

He argued the tactic is legal, citing a 1970s-era opinion from the Government Accountability Office.

The Impoundment Control Act, passed in 1974 in response to abuses by President Nixon, was designed to stop presidents from unilaterally canceling funds for political reasons.

It mandates that rescissions be sent to Congress for review. However, the law also leaves a narrow procedural gap that could let the president effectively “veto” funding through inaction.

Legal scholars disagree on the legality of this strategy. Some say it follows the letter of the law.

Others, like Cornell’s David Bateman, say the approach is an “effort to evade the clear intent” of the law, warning courts may block it.

Still, the Trump team appears undeterred, seeing a legal challenge as part of the plan.

Commentary:

With Congress unwilling to take serious action on spending cuts, the president must be ready to act decisively.

A pocket rescission is not a loophole—it’s a legal tool, one that exists precisely for moments like this, when fiscal discipline is needed but legislative will is lacking.

The United States is facing a massive and growing budget deficit.

If elected officials continue to ignore the looming crisis, then it falls to the executive branch to do the job the legislature won’t.

Voters elected President Trump with a mandate to drain the swamp, and that includes stopping runaway spending in Washington.

While critics cry foul, the same lawmakers complaining about executive action are often the ones too afraid to take the tough votes themselves.

Pocket rescissions offer a way to cut waste without asking Congress to do what it clearly has no stomach for—trimming bloated budgets and eliminating pet projects.

Some say it’s an overreach. But isn’t it a greater abuse of power for Congress to keep throwing taxpayer money into programs we can no longer afford?

When the stakes are this high, waiting around for consensus is no longer an option.

If the courts get involved, the president should not back down.

Just as he’s done on border policy and deregulation, Trump should push forward regardless of media pressure or judicial activism.

The American people want results, not excuses. This isn’t about party politics—it’s about doing what’s right for the country.

If that means upsetting a few bureaucrats and triggering a legal fight, so be it. Trump was elected to lead, not to ask for permission.

The Bottom Line:

President Trump may use a legal end-of-year budget tool to cancel spending without waiting for Congress.

While controversial, the method has legal precedent and could help cut wasteful federal programs.

If Congress won’t act, the president must. With deficits soaring, bold steps like pocket rescissions may be the only way forward.

Sign Up For The TFPP Wire Newsletter

By signing up, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use. You may opt out at any time.

Read Next

Ghislaine Maxwell Agrees to Testify Before Congress, But Only If These Four Demands Are Met

Police Charge Five After Brutal Late-Night Mob Assault in Cincinnati Caught on Video’

Sen. Kennedy Responds to NYC Shooting With a Blunt Message About Gun Laws