With Republican control of both chambers of Congress and the White House, it probably looked like clear sailing for the president’s legislative agenda and appointees. But the Trump administration may not have until January 2027 – or even 2026, when lawmakers are busy campaigning for the midterms. Donald Trump has asked a lot of the GOP majorities in Congress, but now they’re pushing back on his latest endeavors – recess appointments and so-called pocket rescissions. Could the fallout of these clashes spell doom for what remains of the president’s legislative agenda?
Pocket Rescissions
To understand what Trump is considering, we need to revisit how rescissions work. Congress appropriates funds for specific purposes and recipients. The executive branch is then legally obligated to spend that money as the legislature directed. The president, however, has a way to undo this, so long as Congress is willing to play along. The law allows the chief executive to delay spending he doesn’t see as worthwhile and ask Congress to consider canceling it.
As laid out in the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the president can formally request rescissions. Congress then has 45 consecutive days to consider the bill, and it only needs a simple majority in both chambers to pass – no 60-vote cloture to overcome a filibuster in the Senate. If lawmakers don’t agree by the deadline, the funds must be spent.
Now we come to the idea of a “pocket rescission.” On its face, it’s a standard rescission request. The difference, however, is in the timing. If the president sends his request and opts to temporarily hold the money with fewer than 45 days remaining in the fiscal year (which ends September 30), then, even if Congress doesn’t approve it, the funding expires unspent, and the result is that he gets the spending cut for which he asked.
In 1975, President Gerald Ford sent a request to Congress just a few days before the end of the year, asking for about $10 million in rescissions. The Government Accountability Office confirmed the funds expired without lawmakers approving the request. The clock simply ran out.
“In our opinion, having to wait 45 days of continuous sessions before it can be determined that a proposed rescission has been rejected is a major deficiency in the Impoundment Control Act,” Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought wrote in a 2021 letter to House Budget Chairman John Yarmuth, a Democrat from Kentucky who has since retired. “We believe Congress should have available affirmative means within the Act to handle rescissions, aside from merely waiting for the time to pass.”
He then suggested Congress might change the act to prevent the so-called pocket rescission, but that hasn’t happened. As it stands, the law doesn’t allow for legislators to actively reject the request – they simply have 45 days to approve it, or it expires.
Is Trump Poking the Bear?
The Trump administration has already pulled back about $9 billion in previously appropriated funds. Congress narrowly passed – after several all-night sessions – his first package, cutting funding to USAID and public broadcasting, which had been singled out by DOGE. Shortly after, the White House made it clear that more requests would follow. Lately, however, the president has reportedly been mulling over pocket rescissions as an alternative. But the idea doesn’t sit well with much of Congress – including many Republicans.
“Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional,” Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) told reporters. “So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional. So we’ll see how it goes.”
That opinion doesn’t seem to fit, however, with its historically successful use, or the 2021 lamentations of OMB Director Vought – who now seems to be more a fan of the idea than he once was. It also doesn’t fit the letter of the law, regardless of what the legislators who created it intended.
That said, Democrats have been quick to sue the Trump administration for anything and everything – including some suits that verge on the ridiculous. So there’s no reason, presumably, for some anti-Trump individual or group to challenge it. And, of course, should the final ruling determine pocket rescissions are not legitimate, that’ll be the new standard, barring some later reversal.
Are they constitutional? It apparently depends on who you ask. Perhaps the best perspective is that they are until the courts rule otherwise. Legal or not, they’re also quite rare. Even successful rescissions that don’t game the system aren’t common, though failed requests certainly are.
The general consensus among GOP lawmakers seems to be that they’re fine with rescissions – Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA) even said he doesn’t care if Trump sends over a package a week – they just want to vote on them. There’s some worry that, should the president push the so-called pocket rescissions, it’ll threaten the cooperative spirit necessary to work out a full spending deal for 2026. And that’s saying nothing of the so-called big, beautiful bill 2.0 that some Republicans are supposedly already working on.
Trump reportedly hasn’t yet decided to resort to this extreme measure. As Director Vought put it, “[W]e’re making progress during the normal course of business with Congress.” So long as that remains the case, there’s little reason for the president to poke the bear.
The president may not need any Democrats to pass big budget bills, fund the next year (assuming lawmakers use reconciliation), pass rescissions, or approve his nominees. But he still needs the GOP – and with such thin majorities in both chambers, he can’t afford to alienate his own side of the aisle.
