Trump Uses Budget Rescission to Reduce Government Spending

Washington has a spending problem.

The federal government has accumulated enormous debt, while annual deficits continue at levels that cannot be sustained indefinitely. Through the first 11 months of fiscal 2026 alone, the federal government ran a deficit of about $2 trillion.

President Trump has repeatedly made clear that he does not want to solve the problem by raising tax rates. That leaves the other side of the equation.

Government must spend less.

That sounds simple. In Washington, it has proven nearly impossible.

Congress Won’t Make the Cuts

When Trump returned to office, his administration launched the Department of Government Efficiency effort to identify waste, fraud, unnecessary contracts, and federal programs that could be reduced or eliminated.

The theory was straightforward. Examine government spending from top to bottom, identify expenditures that taxpayers should not have to finance and eliminate them.

But actually, cutting federal spending proved much more difficult.

Members of Congress routinely talk about reducing the deficit. Yet when specific programs are placed on the chopping block, lawmakers suddenly find reasons why nearly every program must continue.

President Trump has clearly become frustrated with this process.

So, he is trying another approach.

Trump Turns to Budget Rescission

On Sept. 25, Trump sent Congress a proposal to cancel $810 million in previously appropriated but unspent federal funds.

The largest portion, $567 million, comes from Department of Health and Human Services programs associated with refugees, asylum seekers, and other non-citizens. The administration argues that changing conditions at the border have reduced the need for this spending.

Other proposed reductions involve programs at the Departments of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and Justice, along with international assistance.

The administration is using what is known as a pocket rescission.

Normally, under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a president can ask Congress to rescind previously appropriated money. The president can withhold those funds for up to 45 days of continuous congressional session while Congress considers the request. If Congress doesn’t approve the rescission, the law generally requires the money to be released.

Trump is taking a different approach.

Because his request came immediately before the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year, the administration argues that the money can remain withheld until the budget authority expires.

Critics disagree.

The Government Accountability Office has concluded that the Impoundment Control Act does not permit pocket rescissions. The administration disputes that interpretation.

That creates a significant legal question that could eventually have to be settled by the courts.

$810 Million Is Small, but the Principle Is Big

Certainly, $810 million isn’t going to solve America’s deficit problem.

Compared with an annual deficit approaching $2 trillion, it is barely a rounding error.

But that misses the larger point.

Washington did not accumulate its massive debt through one gigantic spending decision. It accumulated it through thousands of spending decisions, made year after year.

Every government program has a constituency. Every proposed spending reduction produces opposition. And every member of Congress can find a reason why a program benefiting his or her constituents should not be cut.

That’s exactly why reducing government spending has become so difficult.

Trump’s frustration reflects that reality. Even with Republicans controlling Congress, achieving substantial spending reductions has proven extraordinarily difficult.

The president can propose cuts. DOGE can identify waste. Cabinet secretaries can recommend eliminating programs.

But Congress controls federal appropriations, making lasting reductions difficult without congressional cooperation.

Washington Has to Start Somewhere

There is a legitimate constitutional debate over how much authority a president has to refuse to spend money that Congress has already appropriated. Congress possesses the power of the purse, and that principle cannot simply be ignored.

But Congress cannot ignore the economic problem either.

How long can America continue running enormous annual deficits while the national debt and the government’s interest expense keep climbing?

Eventually something must change.

The $810 million Trump wants to rescind won’t balance the budget. It won’t come close.

But perhaps that isn’t the most important point.

The important point is that reducing the deficit requires actually reducing spending. That means government officials must be willing to examine programs, decide which ones are unnecessary and then eliminate them.

Congress has repeatedly demonstrated how difficult that is.

Trump’s $810 million rescission is small compared with the overall federal budget.

But Washington must start somewhere.

And if Congress won’t make the cuts, Trump’s frustration is only going to grow.

Agree/Disagree with the author(s)? Let them know in the comments below and be heard by 10’s of thousands of CDN readers each day!