Cutting budget allocations from government agencies by year's end, as stated by the White House.
The White House is contemplating the use of a budgetary tactic known as "pocket rescissions," a move that has raised concerns among lawmakers and legal experts. This strategy allows the president to request the late-year cancellation of funds for federal agencies without explicit Congressional approval, a practice that has been widely criticised as unlawful by members of both parties.
In 2018, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found that the Impoundment Control Act does not provide a mechanism for the president to unilaterally shorten the availability of budget authority. This finding was reaffirmed in 2021 when the GAO ruled that the Transportation Department cannot withhold electric vehicle infrastructure program funds using this method.
The administration's current plan is to cancel $9 billion in previously approved funding. The House earlier this month narrowly approved the Office and Management and Budget's (OMB) $9.4 billion rescission package. However, Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., has suggested that pocket rescissions are unlawful, stating that the president does not have a retroactive line-item veto.
Mike Collins, a member of the appropriations panel, also expressed the belief that the process is illegal. Collins, along with other critics, argues that affirmative congressional action would be required to grant broad authority to the president for pocket rescissions, a stance supported by then-GAO General Counsel Thomas Armstrong.
The administration, led by Office and Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, has not been deterred by these criticisms. Vought and other administration officials have suggested that they will seek to establish new precedent through the courts, arguing that the Impoundment Control Act is itself unconstitutional.
The House GOP has cleared a measure to claw back billions from foreign assistance and public media programs. This move comes as the White House has backed down in a fight over foreign aid spending cuts. However, the use of pocket rescissions would provide an avenue to circumvent Congress if it votes against the package.
The controversy over pocket rescissions is not a new one. The Trump administration announced its intention to use this tactic in 2021, a move that was met with bipartisan criticism. The administration has previously begun the process for a similar effort toward the end of fiscal years 2018 and 2019, but decided not to pursue it.
In light of these developments, the GAO's legal opinion on White House rescissions has been hailed by House Budget Leaders. The opinion provides a clear stance on the legality of pocket rescissions, a stance that could play a significant role in any legal challenges that may arise.
As the White House continues to consider this controversial budgetary tactic, the debate over its legality and constitutionality is likely to continue.
Read also:
- Understanding Hemorrhagic Gastroenteritis: Key Facts
- Stopping Osteoporosis Treatment: Timeline Considerations
- Trump's Policies: Tariffs, AI, Surveillance, and Possible Martial Law
- Expanded Community Health Involvement by CK Birla Hospitals, Jaipur, Maintained Through Consistent Outreach Programs Across Rajasthan
