You may have heard about the White House's efforts, which are being challenged in the courts, to cancel $4.9 Billion in funding through a mechanism called the "Pocket Rescission". While many people might have never heard the term rescission, even fewer people were alive the last time a President used the "Pocket Rescission" process to cancel previously appropriated funds.

Let's start with what is a rescission?

This is a process by which the President or Congress, with the consent of the other branch, can remove the budget authority for previously budgeted, but unallocated government funds. In layman's terms, it is a way to not spend money in the way it was originally budgeted for, so long as it has not already been spent. When initiated by the President, the Administration must notify Congress of their desire not to spend the funds, which allows for a 45-day period where Congress reviews the request and votes to accept, reject, or revise the Administration's desired cancellation of budget authority. This is a process that was used by every President from Ford to Clinton. President Trump is the only President, in the last five administrations, to request rescissions.

What makes for a “pocket rescission”?

A “Pocket Rescission” is not a legal term and is something that is being litigated by the Administration at this point, despite the Government Accountability Office indicated that this process was not legal in 2018. It references a rescission request that is sent to Congress with less than 45 days left in the Federal Fiscal Year (FFY). The idea being that Congress can run out the clock on the FFY and not have to vote on the rescission request, effectively stopping the expenditure of those funds. This is due to the Federal Government’s budgeting process, where any unspent funds must be returned to the Treasury at the end of the FFY. However, just because Congress has 45 days to act, does not require that they take 45 days to act. If they had the political will, Congress could vote on this immediately to ensure enough time to implement the will of the two Chambers.

An interesting note.

Rescissions take only a simple majority to pass and can move quickly through the House and Senate, if there is the political will. However, the rescissions package from earlier this year took the full time to get passed and signed into law. There were changes to the President's request, as about $400 million in funding was restored for the PREPFAR program. The question becomes, why has the President asked for another rescission of funds dedicated to international causes, which were not included in the earlier rescission package, when there was ample time to ask for this cancellation of funding earlier in the year.

What is in the recent rescission request?

With a total request to cancel $4.9 billion in funding, there is a lot to unpack here. This includes $3.2 billion from USAID development assistance programs, $393 million from the State Department’s peacekeeping activities, $322 million from the State Department’s democracy promotion fund, and over $444 million in other peacekeeping activities. The White House claims that these programs are the worst of the “Woke, Weaponized, and Wasteful” that the US has been funding for far too long, however, one wonders why it took them so long to tackle these issues?

What does this mean globally?

Of course, a lot is left to be written about the impact this will have on the world, both good and bad. The unintended consequences, as well as the intended ones, will take time to develop and morph. Some of the impacts are predictable, however, such as an increase in public health issues, weaker economic growth in countries losing U.S. support, and the potential for increased violence within communities hit by longstanding community violence. 

Here is a good summary about some of the global economic impacts that these rescissions may have, if implemented, including the failure of climate resilience efforts in Honduras, Ethiopia having to restructure its sovereign debt, and developing countries around the world becoming more aligned with China through its Belt and Road Initiative. The vaccine alliance, GAVI, will lose funding, the World Bank will lose funding, along with a host of United Nations supported programs like the Development Program and UNESCO.

Most importantly, this will lead to a further erosion in the trust people and countries put in the United States government to uphold its commitments. This sets a precedent that funding allocated by Congress is not binding and the Administration can unilaterally decide the budget of the US Government, based on whatever criteria they decide. In a world where markets crave stability and predictability, where people are overwhelmed by competing global challenges, and governments are reconsidering their alignments, a bit of confidence building should be in order.

Where does this leave us?

Senator Susan Collins recently stated in response to the President’s efforts:

“Article I of the Constitution makes clear that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse.  Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.” The Hill 8/29/2025

If the Senator, and others who agree with her, wants to ensure this effort does not go through, they need to act quickly and demand votes on this package. Just because they have 45 days to vote on this request, does not mean they must use all that time. Quick action is not Congress’ forte, but the importance of this issue demands they break with recent tradition and ensure all Members of Congress make their positions known to the public. If the Administration truly believes they have a public mandate to do this, they should not fear putting it to a vote.