On September 30, $810 million in appropriated fiscal year (FY) 2026 spending expired because of a Trump administration maneuver known as a pocket rescission. The rescission, which targeted spending that the administration correctly described as wasteful, functions as a unilateral spending cut by the executive. This makes it appealing to many who want to see less spending. However, the pocket rescission approach creates risks, and Republicans and libertarians alike should be wary of how the strategy could be exploited in the future.
The administration’s maneuver has received a mix of criticism and support. Appropriators from both parties decried the pocket rescission, calling it an illegal usurpation of congressional spending authority. Seven states have filed a lawsuit against the administration to undo the rescission. Conservatives such as Reps. Chip Roy (R‑TX) and Scott Perry (R‑PA) have praised the administration, focusing on the importance of cutting wasteful spending. Sen. John Kennedy (R‑LA) criticized Congress for not enacting more cuts.
With the gross national debt now above $40 trillion and interest costs surging, it is easy to understand dissatisfaction with the legislative branch and a desire to see action to reduce deficit spending. There are better ways to achieve lasting savings, as seen in 2025, when the administration worked with Congress to eliminate 11 times as much spending as the FY 2026 pocket rescission did.
More importantly, even though pocket rescissions can deliver a short-term policy victory (such as eliminating $810 million in wasteful spending), they open the door to larger problems down the line.
The Pendulum Always Swings Back
Supporters of the pocket rescission should beware of the executive branch claiming the authority to unilaterally cut duly appropriated spending. It undermines congressional control over the federal budget. Encroachment by the president further tilts the balance of power away from the legislative branch, which is designed to be more representative of and responsive to the American public.
Libertarians consider some federal spending to be judicious. For example, federal inspectors general offices have a combined budget of roughly $4 billion per year, but their work against fraud and corruption saves taxpayers a much larger amount. The Government Accountability Office performs vital oversight on federal agencies and employees, uncovering wasteful and abusive actions. The Federal Communications Commission spends a modest amount to auction licenses for commercial spectrum, generating billions in revenue and facilitating a much larger amount of economic value in the process. All of these would be vulnerable to pocket rescissions if an administration chose to target them.
Republicans should also consider the long-term risks of the pocket rescission maneuver. A future Democratic administration could use the Trump administration’s playbook of disbursing selected funds slowly, then deploying a pocket rescission to freeze them until they expire. This would enable political victories that might be impossible to achieve in Congress, imperiling Republican priorities such as national defense and immigration enforcement.
The impulse to use escalatory tactics while in power is always present but can undermine the constitutional system and ultimately backfire when the other party regains control. Spending hawks should instead leverage today’s economic circumstances to promote a permanently leaner federal government.
Seizing Opportunities to Reduce Spending
The Trump administration secured roughly $9 billion in rescissions from Congress in 2025. Because the administration sent its rescission request to Congress on June 3, it enabled a legislative debate that drew public attention to the proposed savings. The enacted cuts were not vulnerable to legal challenge afterward, and defunding the Corporation for Public Broadcasting has permanently removed it from the federal budget. The administration could have repeated its success in FY 2026 by transmitting a rescission request in June or July rather than on September 25.
The arcane nature of pocket rescissions makes them difficult for the public to understand, dampening discussion about wasteful spending in a way that moving a rescissions package through Congress does not. Further, pocket rescissions can yield only short-term effects, so the tactic is a poor means of creating the lasting change needed to correct America’s fiscal imbalance and shrink the size of government. Congress should amend the Impoundment Control Act to prevent future pocket rescissions. Such a change would stop unilateral spending cuts while preserving the core rescission process.
With the US economy burdened by persistent inflation and debt markets demanding high yields on Treasury bonds, policymakers should work to raise public awareness about the economic costs of wasteful and unsustainable federal spending. Fiscal responsibility would be a better solution to cost-of-living concerns than harmful regulations or inflationary handouts.
While the FY 2025 and 2026 rescissions did reduce spending, total spending still increased by hundreds of billions of dollars in both years. The administration should work with Congress to enact the many worthwhile spending cuts in its discretionary budget proposals. Congress should use reconciliation to deliver dramatic savings rather than additional spending. Both branches should continue the War on Fraud by enforcing and strengthening eligibility requirements and expand it to target deceptive spending that benefits special interests.
Pocket rescissions are a double-edged sword and poorly suited to meaningful deficit reduction. Officials should pursue lasting savings without further centralizing power in the White House.
