Trump’s nearly $1 billion funding cuts explained: What Congress approved and which programmes are affected

US President Donald Trump has moved to cancel nearly $1 billion in federal spending that Congress had previously approved, using a rarely invoked and legally contested mechanism known as a “pocket rescission.” The move, announced by the White House on September 25, targets programmes dealing with immigration, education, housing, minority-business development, healthcare research and international environmental initiatives.

The administration says the funds represent wasteful, duplicative or ideologically driven spending that no longer serves US taxpayers. Critics, including lawmakers from both parties, argue that the executive branch cannot effectively cancel money that Congress has appropriated without congressional approval.

Here is what the move means and which programmes are affected.

What is a ‘pocket rescission’?

A rescission is the cancellation of funding that Congress has already appropriated. Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, the president can propose that Congress rescind appropriated funds. Congress generally has 45 legislative days to consider the proposal.

A “pocket rescission” is a more controversial manoeuvre. The administration sends the rescission request when there is so little time left in the fiscal year that the 45-day congressional review period cannot realistically be completed before the funds expire.

Trump's latest package was announced just five days before the September 30 end of the federal fiscal year, leaving Congress little practical time to act. The administration argues that the mechanism is permitted under the Impoundment Control Act, while congressional critics and the Government Accountability Office have challenged the legality of using it this way.

Trump has used the tactic before

The latest action follows Trump's use of a pocket rescission in 2025, when his administration sought to block about $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid.

That was the first use of the mechanism in nearly 50 years.

The Supreme Court declined to block those rescissions, with the justices giving significant weight to the president's authority in foreign affairs. The current package is different because it primarily targets domestic programmes.

Which programmes are being targeted?

According to the White House, the package includes the following major categories:

The largest portion of the package involves $567 million in Health and Human Services funding for programmes serving refugees, asylum seekers, unaccompanied minors and other non-citizens.

The Trump administration argues that the money is no longer required because illegal border crossings have fallen sharply. The White House also criticised several organisations that received federal grants, highlighting their immigration-related work and, in some cases, their links to former Democratic administrations.

Other major cuts include:

$70 million for international education programmes

$56 million for HUD housing counselling programmes

$28 million for HHS research grants

$25 million for education programmes serving migrant students

$15 million for Department of Justice Community Relations Service

$15 million for DHS programmes providing services to non-citizens

$10 million for programmes assisting immigrants with legal services

$10 million for the Minority Business Development Agency

$9 million in debt relief linked to environmental conservation programmes

$5 million for the HHS Office of Minority Health

The White House says the targeted HHS research grants include projects it considers duplicative, ideological or unrelated to the department's core mission.

Why is the move controversial?

The dispute goes beyond the individual programmes. It centres on who has the final authority over federal spending — Congress or the president.

The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. Under the Impoundment Control Act, presidents can propose rescissions, but the law establishes a congressional process for approving them. The Bipartisan Policy Center notes that the legality of a “pocket rescission” remains unresolved because the statute does not explicitly address this scenario.

Susan Collins objects

The move has also drawn criticism from Republican Senator Susan Collins of Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee.

Collins said the administration acted without warning or consultation and accused the Office of Management and Budget of exceeding its authority.

“Not only is the delay itself an impoundment that was not reported to Congress, but also it is a usurpation of Congress’s appropriations powers,” Collins said.

She said she would work with colleagues to address what she described as “illegal actions.”

Democrat condemns the move

Senator Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the action “theft from the American people.”

Murray argued that the funds were approved by Congress on a bipartisan basis and should be spent as lawmakers intended.

The White House, meanwhile, maintains that the president is using authority available under the Impoundment Control Act to eliminate spending it considers wasteful or harmful.