In a striking blow to presidential budget tactics, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has ruled that a controversial method known as "pocket rescissions" violates federal law.
According to The Hill, this decision, announced this week, challenges the Trump administration's potential plans to withhold congressionally approved funds near the fiscal year-end, a move that could sidestep legislative oversight just before the critical government funding deadline on Sept. 30.
The issue of pocket rescissions has been simmering for years, with legal questions surrounding the authority of the president to control federal spending. A pocket rescission occurs when the president requests Congress to cancel funding that has already been approved, typically near the end of the fiscal year. By timing the request late, the administration can effectively hold the funds, making it unlikely they will be spent before the 45-day window for congressional approval or denial expires.
The GAO, a congressional watchdog, revisited this issue with a clear stance this week, posting on its website that such maneuvers are not permissible under current law. The agency pointed to a 2018 legal analysis to reinforce its position, emphasizing that the president lacks the power to bypass Congress in this manner. The Impoundment Control Act, according to the GAO, ensures that Congress retains control over federal spending, often referred to as the "power of the purse."
The GAO argued that allowing pocket rescissions would enable a president to ignore congressional decisions on funding, regardless of whether lawmakers approve or deny the cancellation request. This, the agency noted, would undermine the fundamental balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. In its statement, the GAO wrote, "If Congress wanted a president to have that authority, it would need to change the law."
The timing of the GAO's ruling is significant, as the government faces a funding deadline on Sept. 30, heightening the stakes for budget negotiations. Democrats are concerned that Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought might still attempt to use this tactic before the deadline. This fear has led to increased scrutiny of the administration's budget strategies as the fiscal year draws to a close.
On Capitol Hill, opinions are split, with some Republicans opposing the use of pocket rescissions despite their general support for President Trump's fiscal policies. Last month, several Republicans approved Trump's initial request to cancel previously allocated funds, marking a rare instance of bipartisan agreement on a budget matter. However, opposition to pocket rescissions persists, with Rep. Mike Simpson, R-Idaho, a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, voicing strong objections.
Rep. Simpson stated, "Pocket rescissions, I think, are unconstitutional." In the same vein, he added, "So, just like impoundment, I think, is unconstitutional." His remarks reflect a broader concern among some lawmakers about executive overreach in budgetary decisions.
Amid these tensions, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer of New York sought guarantees from President Trump last weekend to avoid using pocket rescissions. Schumer's request came during discussions aimed at expediting confirmations for lower-level executive branch nominees, hoping to secure a commitment on funding practices. However, the negotiations faltered, with no agreement reached on this critical issue.
President Trump rejected Schumer's proposal outright, offering a blunt dismissal during their talks. According to reports, Trump told Schumer, "Go to hell," signaling a sharp refusal to compromise on the matter. This exchange has further strained relations between the White House and Democratic leadership as the funding deadline looms.
The GAO's ruling could have far-reaching effects on how future administrations approach budget management and congressional relations. By declaring pocket rescissions illegal, the agency has reaffirmed Congress's role in overseeing federal expenditures, potentially limiting executive discretion. This decision may prompt lawmakers to revisit or clarify existing statutes to prevent similar disputes in the future.
As Sept. 30 approaches, the urgency to resolve funding issues without resorting to controversial tactics grows stronger. Both parties are keenly aware of the potential fallout from a government shutdown or delayed funding agreements. The GAO's guidance serves as a reminder of the legal boundaries surrounding presidential authority over the budget.
The debate over pocket rescissions is part of a larger conversation about the balance of power in federal spending decisions. With the fiscal year-end nearing, all eyes are on how the administration will respond to the GAO's ruling and whether it will adhere to congressional oversight. This issue is likely to remain a point of contention in upcoming budget discussions, shaping the political landscape.
The GAO's firm stance against pocket rescissions underscores the importance of checks and balances in government operations. It also highlights the agency's role as a nonpartisan arbiter in disputes over federal law and policy implementation. As the funding deadline nears, the resolution of this issue will test the resilience of legislative authority in the face of executive action.