Trump Launches New Attack on Congress’s Spending Power

20260928-TRUMP-Reuters.JPG
Reuters
By Yuval Rosenberg and Michael Rainey

Happy Monday! We're just 36 days away from the midterm elections, and there's lots going on...just not necessarily in Congress. Here's what we're watching while waiting for the Eagles-Bears game.

Trump Launches New Attack on Congress's Spending Power

President Trump on Friday launched another attack on Congress's power of the purse. The White House informed congressional leaders that the president is unilaterally canceling nearly $1 billion in what it calls "harmful government spending" - funding that Congress previously approved.

The president's provocative move is known as a "pocket rescission," and many lawmakers say it's illegal, as does the Government Accountability Office, an independent, nonpartisan watchdog agency.

What is a pocket rescission? Trump is invoking a power granted to him under the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which allows him to request that Congress rescind appropriated funding and sets up a process in which the funds in question must be released unless Congress has acted on the request within 45 days of continuous session.

Pocket rescissions game that law, landing within the 45-day timeframe, leaving lawmakers with little time to handle the request and prevent the proposed cuts.

"A pocket rescission could allow a president to avoid spending the money regardless of whether Congress approves the rescission request," the GAO said in a blog post last year. "This would cede Congress's power of the purse by allowing a president to, in effect, change the law by shortening the period of availability for fixed-period funds." It added: "The Impoundment Control Act (ICA) does not provide that authority. If Congress wanted a president to have that authority, it would need to change the law."

Despite such warnings, the Trump White House used the maneuver last year, requesting the cancellation of $4.9 billion in foreign aid funding. After a legal challenge, the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, lifted a lower court's order requiring some $4 billion in funding to be spent as intended. The court did not rule on the legality of pocket rescissions more broadly, but White House budget director Russell Vought declared it a "major victory." The White House continues to say that pocket rescissions are a proper use of presidential authority under the Impoundment Control Act.

What Trump wants to cut now: Trump's new request came just five days before the end of the fiscal year on September 30, with the House already gone until November and the Senate preparing to leave as well.

The White House said Trump is canceling $810 million in funding across 11 rescissions, much of it for programs and services aimed at immigrants, minorities, climate programs and students. Most of the cuts, $567 million, would come from funding for the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement.

In a letter detailing his request, Trump said the program "is overfunded due to the Administration's successful border policies" and that the cut would be "consistent with the Administration's goal of ending the use of Federal taxpayer dollars to support non-citizens, putting Americans first."

Other funding would be cut from the Departments of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Justice and Treasury.

Appropriators blast Trump's end run: The request drew the ire of lawmakers in both parties, who bristled at the attempt to usurp their authority over spending.

Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, said the rescission request had come without warning or consultation and was a "clear violation of the law." She laid into the White House budget office, led by Russell Vought, in a statement posted on X.

"This is the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse," Collins said. "This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law."

Readers on X added a community note pointing out that Collins, now running for reelection in a key contest that could help decide control of the Senate, "voted to confirm OMB Director Vought, despite Vought's known support for the President's efforts to impound Congressionally-approved funds."

Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democratic appropriator in the Senate, said that Democrats have identified other funding that the Trump administration appears poised to spend or withhold in defiance of Congress.

"This is theft from the American people, plain and simple," Murray said. "These are funds Congress has delivered on a bipartisan basis and should be helping people-not cut off by a president more focused on building a ballroom than investing in families."

Murray noted that Democrats had fought to include language in the latest government funding extension that would prevent the Trump administration from pursuing another pocket rescission but were blocked by Republicans.

"Russ Vought's message to Congress is that your votes don't count, and your laws are optional. It is now time for my Republican colleagues who said they would never let this happen to stand up and join us to stop this," Murray said.

The pocket rescission may also complicate appropriators' efforts to negotiate compromises on full-year funding. Lawmakers are unlikely to trust any deals on spending if the president can swoop in later and unilaterally decide what money does or does not get spent.

The bottom line: There's a big battle over government funding coming after Election Day.

Trump Administration Runs More Taxpayer-Funded Trump Ads

The Trump administration aired a television ad this past weekend that appears to be identical to a campaign ad made for the 2024 presidential election, with one major difference: It says it has been "Paid for by the U.S. Government."

The ad joins two other campaign-like messages making that claim, including one we told you about last week that states, "America will never be a communist country," while a chorus of voices sings "love me."

In the ad that aired this weekend, a grim-faced Trump is seen walking down a hall as his voice, recorded at what sounds like a political rally, intones, "This is the final battle."

"We will cast out the communists, Marxists, and fascists," Trump says. "We will throw off the sick political class that hates our country. We will rout the fake news media, and we will liberate America from these villains once and for all."

The ad, which appeared during some college and NFL football games, has cost more than $362,000 to air so far, CNBC reports, with taxpayers apparently on the hook for the bill, though it's not clear what government agency is covering the cost. Spending on all of the ads has cost more than $1.7 million, according to an estimate by AdImpact.

Lawmakers take issue: Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Monday that he doesn't think the federal government should be footing the bill for Trump's ads.

"It's a great message. I like the message," Thune told reporters. "But it shouldn't be paid for with taxpayer dollars."

Republican Sen. John Kennedy made the same point on Sunday. "I don't think any public official ... should spend public money on private ads for themselves," he told CBS News. "I think there ought to be a rule that you can't - well, there probably is a rule - you can't spend public money to promote yourself."

A group of Democratic lawmakers, including Sen. Patty Murray and Rep. Rosa DeLauro, leaned into the illegality of the ads. "This is the sort of government propaganda one might expect in North Korea, not the United States of America, and it is an egregious and illegal misuse of Americans' hard-earned tax dollars," they wrote in a letter to White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles last week. "This ad is a violation of section 718 of division E of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2026, a longstanding general provision prohibiting any taxpayer funds from being used to produce government propaganda."

The lawmakers added that the airing of the ad appears to violate federal ethics laws, including the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from working on political campaigns while in office. They also demanded that the ads be taken off the air and the relevant federal employees be disciplined.

"The law is not complicated," the lawmakers concluded. "You cannot use taxpayer dollars for political advertisements."

White House sees no problem: The White House has defended the ads and denied that they violate any rules, saying they are merely public service announcements aimed at boosting patriotism and national pride.

"The announcements are very clearly not campaign ads; President Trump is not on the ballot and there is no call to action," the White House said. "Instead, the announcements are a reminder for Americans to love their country and know why it's worth defending - at home, at the border, and abroad."

US and China Agree to Cut Tariffs on $60 Billion Worth of Goods

The United States and China have agreed to create a framework that would reduce tariffs on hundreds of "non-sensitive" goods worth about $30 billion in each country.

The "30-for-30" agreement announced by the White House Sunday comes on the heels of a high-level meeting between President Trump and President Xi Jinping in Washington. "As a direct result of the strong relationship between President Trump and President Xi, the U.S. and China ... have recommended $30 billion of trade in non-sensitive goods on each side that could benefit from more favorable tariff treatment in the future," U.S. trade representative Jamieson Greer said.

The proposed tariff reductions would affect about 30% of the goods that China imports from the United States, with the list of 1,619 affected goods including a wide variety of agricultural products, as well as an assortment of medical devices and building materials. The list of goods imported by the United States has 77 items and includes fireworks, toys, curtains and electric shavers.

One key item left out of the agreement is U.S. soybeans, which face a 13% tariff in China, putting U.S. farmers at a severe disadvantage relative to other global producers such as Brazil, whose farmers face a 3% tariff.

The tariff reductions were recommended by the U.S.-China Board of Trade, a new government-to-government institution that was conceived during Trump's visit to China earlier this year.

Quote of the Day

"People are worried about the cost of living, I don't know how else to say it. We just haven't addressed it."

  • Republican Sen. John Kennedy of Louisiana, quoted by Politico, in a piece discussing Senate GOP leaders' plans for this week, the Senate's final few days in session before lawmakers head home until after the midterm elections.

Fiscal News Roundup

Views and Analysis