Govind Tekale
Congress spent weeks negotiating how federal money should be spent. Now, the President has cancelled nearly $1 billion in congressionally-approved funding—without seeking permission from lawmakers. The move ignites a constitutional showdown over whether a President can unilaterally override Congress’s spending decisions. Legal experts and senators are already fiercely fighting over whether the action is lawful. At stake: the basic power to control the federal budget and set national priorities.
Related: White House CNN press access | Trump-Xi summit ends without AI agreement
President Trump announced the cancellation of nearly $1 billion in funding approved by Congress, according to recent reporting from CBS News. The rescission affects multiple federal programs including health initiatives for unaccompanied children through HHS, educational support for migrant students, minority health research, and gender-affirming care research. Trump has characterized these expenditures as wasteful. The move follows a similar $4.9 billion rescission earlier in his presidency. Legal disputes have already erupted, with the Government Accountability Office issuing a ruling that may determine whether Trump’s action complies with federal law. The process is known as a “pocket rescission”—a tactic that allows the President to attempt to eliminate spending without explicit congressional approval.
The funding cancellations could affect millions of Americans across healthcare, education, and research sectors. Unaccompanied children awaiting placement may lose federal support for basic needs. Students learning English as a second language face reduced educational resources. Researchers studying gender-affirming medical treatments could see grants disappear. Minority health programs may lose funding entirely. These consequences depend on whether courts ultimately rule the rescissions lawful—and that legal battle has just begun with no clear endpoint in sight.
The Government Accountability Office issued a ruling questioning whether Trump’s “pocket rescission” strategy complies with federal law. Senator Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, called the action “unlawful”—a striking rebuke from within Trump’s own party. Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, stated bluntly: “The President is not a king. He cannot decide unilaterally which laws to follow and which to ignore.”
This mirrors Trump’s 2025 attempt to cancel $4.9 billion in appropriated funds using identical methods. OMB Director Russell Vought led that earlier effort, directing federal agencies to implement the cuts despite Congress having already approved the spending. Those rescissions faced legal challenges and established precedent for today’s battle over executive power and congressional authority.
The current rescission targets specific vulnerable populations and research areas. HHS funding for unaccompanied children is eliminated, cutting support for minors arriving without guardians. Education funding for migrant students disappears completely. Minority health research programs lose federal backing. Gender-affirming care research funding is cut entirely from the federal budget.
Each cut reflects the administration’s policy priorities, but raises the fundamental legal question: Can the President unilaterally cancel spending Congress has already appropriated? Constitutional scholars and legal experts offer conflicting answers. Some legal traditions support executive discretion. Others emphasize congressional control of the purse. The courts will ultimately decide this constitutional battle.
The fight exposes a tension that has plagued American governance since the Constitution was written: Who truly controls the federal budget? Is it the President who executes the law and manages agencies, or Congress that votes to appropriate money in the first place? This rescission battle forces that question into courtrooms across America.
Can the President legally use pocket rescissions to cancel congressionally-approved spending? The short answer: it depends on what the courts decide. Legal scholars split on whether the Constitution allows such presidential power. Some argue the President, as chief executive, has inherent authority over how federal agencies spend money. Others contend that congressional appropriations are binding—the President cannot undo them alone. The GAO ruling suggests the latter view may prevail, but final authority rests with the judiciary.
Congress faces a 45-day window to formally challenge the rescissions, according to law. If lawmakers do nothing, the funding cancellations take effect. But given the legal doubts already voiced and the bipartisan nature of the criticism, expect congressional Democrats and some Republicans to file formal objections. The rescission battle is now a fight for American institutions and presidential power.
