Trump cancels $1 billion in federal spending, bypassing Congress
Synopsis
Days before the US fiscal year ends, President Trump has quietly cancelled nearly $1 billion in congressionally approved spending using a disputed timing manoeuvre — triggering rare bipartisan pushback, including from the Senate's top Republican appropriator who called it a 'clear violation of the law.' It echoes a $4.9 billion foreign-aid cancellation last year and signals an escalating White House bid to reshape spending authority.
Key Takeaways
President Trump is cancelling nearly $1 billion in approved federal spending without congressional consent, days before the fiscal year ends on 30 September .
The cuts cover immigration services, foreign aid, education, health research, and support for minority-owned businesses.
The administration is using a 'pocket rescission' — submitting cancellation requests so late that Congress's mandatory 45-day review cannot be completed before funds expire.
Senator Susan Collins (Republican, Maine), the Senate's senior appropriator, called the move 'a clear violation of the law.' The same disputed mechanism was used last year to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign assistance, also without congressional approval.
The action could complicate government-funding talks ahead of the 30 September deadline and may face legal challenge.
President Donald Trump has informed congressional leaders that his administration is cancelling nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal spending without congressional consent, setting off a sharp new confrontation over presidential authority and the constitutional boundaries of public finance. The move, disclosed on Friday, 26 September 2025, comes just days before the federal fiscal year closes on 30 September.
What Is Being Cut
According to multiple media reports, the cancelled funds span a wide range of programmes — immigration services, foreign assistance, education initiatives, health research, and support for minority-owned businesses. CQ Roll Call estimated the cuts affecting health, education, and related programmes at $810 million, while Politico reported the overall cancellation approached $1 billion.
The 'Pocket Rescission' Mechanism
The administration is employing a disputed budget tool known as a 'pocket rescission'. Under this approach, the White House submits a cancellation request so close to the end of the fiscal year that Congress cannot complete its legally mandated 45-day review before the funds expire. Critics across both parties argue this is a deliberate circumvention of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 — legislation enacted specifically to prevent a president from refusing to spend money that Congress has authorised.
What the Government Said
The administration framed the decision as a fiscal discipline measure, describing it, according to CQ Roll Call, as a 'historic action to eliminate wasteful and harmful spending.' No itemised breakdown of which specific line items were cut was immediately made public.
Congressional Reaction
The move drew swift bipartisan condemnation from senior appropriators. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the Senate's senior Republican appropriator, called the action unlawful. 'Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,' Collins said in a statement, adding that the Office of Management and Budget 'intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law.' Collins said she would work with fellow lawmakers 'to address these illegal actions.'
Historical Context and What Comes Next
This is not the first time the Trump administration has used the disputed pocket rescission procedure. Last year, the same mechanism was deployed to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign assistance without congressional approval, triggering similar objections from Democratic and Republican lawmakers concerned about Congress's constitutional spending authority. The US Constitution vests appropriations power in Congress; the executive branch is legally required to implement spending laws passed by the legislature. The latest cancellation is expected to further complicate ongoing government-funding negotiations as the 30 September deadline looms — and could invite legal challenge, given Senator Collins's explicit warning of legislative action.
Point of View
The administration is engineering a fait accompli that the 1974 Impoundment Control Act was written expressly to prevent. What makes this iteration particularly significant is the source of the loudest objection: not a Democrat, but the Senate's senior Republican appropriator. If Collins follows through on legislative action, the confrontation moves from political theatre to an actual institutional test of presidential spending power — one that courts may ultimately have to resolve.
NationPress
26 Sept 2026
Frequently Asked Questions
What federal spending is Trump cancelling?
President Trump is cancelling nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funds covering immigration services, foreign assistance, education programmes, health research, and support for minority-owned businesses. CQ Roll Call put the health and education portion alone at $810 million.
What is a 'pocket rescission' and why is it controversial?
A pocket rescission occurs when the White House submits a formal request to cancel approved funds so close to the fiscal year-end that Congress cannot complete its legally required 45-day review before the money expires. Critics argue this deliberately circumvents the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was enacted to stop presidents from unilaterally refusing to spend congressionally approved funds.
Why is Senator Susan Collins opposing the move?
Senator Collins, the Senate's senior Republican appropriator, has called the cancellation 'a clear violation of the law,' arguing that the Office of Management and Budget deliberately withheld the funds for months to engineer an unlawful cancellation of bipartisan, signed appropriations. She has pledged to work with lawmakers to counter the action.
Has Trump used this mechanism before?
Yes. The Trump administration used the same pocket rescission procedure last year to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign assistance without congressional approval, drawing objections from both Democratic and Republican lawmakers at the time.
