On June 12, 2025, the Trump administration quietly launched a sweeping effort to bypass Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending, directing the Office of Management and Budget to freeze over $30 billion in funds across more than a dozen agencies—including the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the U.S. Agency for International Development. The move, orchestrated by Russell Vought, OMB Director, isn’t just about cutting budgets—it’s about reshaping how power flows between the White House and Capitol Hill. And it’s working.
How the Freeze Works: Spending First, Asking Later
Here’s the thing: Congress writes the budget. The president spends it. That’s how it’s supposed to work. But Vought’s team turned that on its head. Instead of waiting for congressional approval, OMB sent agency heads emails ordering immediate spending freezes on programs ranging from climate research to international peacekeeping. Then, they’d ask Congress to rubber-stamp the cuts retroactively. It’s like taking money out of your neighbor’s wallet and saying, “Hey, can you just sign this form saying it was okay?”
The strategy has three moving parts: deferrals, pocket rescissions, and rescission packages. The first two are the real game-changers. Deferrals let the administration delay spending—temporarily—until Congress approves. But the White House is skipping the “temporary” part. They’re freezing funds outright, then hoping Congress won’t have time to react. And if lawmakers don’t act? The money disappears.
Pocket Rescissions: The 50-Year-Old Trick That Just Came Back
On August 15, 2025, the administration pulled off the first major pocket rescission in half a century. Under the Impoundment Control Act, presidents can propose canceling funds—but only if Congress approves within 45 days. If they don’t? The money stays. But here’s the loophole: if you wait until the last few weeks of the fiscal year—September 30, 2025—Congress has almost no time to respond. That’s what Vought did.
The August package eliminated $5 billion in foreign aid. Of that, $3.2 billion came from USAID’s Development Assistance program. The White House didn’t just cut funding—it labeled the programs “woke, weaponized, and wasteful.” Cuts included $400 million per year for “global climate grift projects,” nearly $11 million for armored vehicles for Uruguay’s military, and $300 million annually for peacekeeping in Somalia. Even $500,000 for body armor pilots in Ghana vanished. The administration claimed these funds were being used for “baking and beauty therapy in Zimbabwe.”
That’s not hyperbole. That’s the language the White House used in internal memos. And it’s working politically. Supporters cheer. Critics call it constitutional overreach.
The Bigger Picture: A $163 Billion Budget Overhaul
This isn’t an isolated move. Back in May 2025, the White House unveiled its Fiscal Year 2026 “skinny budget”, which proposed slashing non-defense discretionary spending by $163 billion—23%—while boosting defense by 13% and the Department of Homeland Security by nearly 65%. It axed the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program by $4 billion, cut food aid by $1.6 billion, and canceled over $15 billion in infrastructure funds tied to the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act—which the White House dubbed the “Green New Scam.”
Even more telling? The Congressional Budget Office couldn’t even estimate 25 of the proposed mandatory spending changes because the White House provided “insufficient detail.” That’s not incompetence. It’s strategy. Ambiguity creates confusion. Confusion delays opposition.
Who’s Affected—and Who’s Fighting Back
Scientists at the National Science Foundation are scrambling. One lab director told E&E News, “We had a $2.3 million grant approved for Arctic permafrost monitoring. Now it’s frozen. We don’t know if it’ll come back—or if the grant will be canceled before we even get the paperwork.”
Foreign partners are alarmed. The Zambian government confirmed its training center funding was cut. A diplomat in Ghana said the body armor pilot was meant to reduce civilian casualties during counterterrorism operations. “Now,” he said, “they’re telling us to rely on local blacksmiths.”
Democrats in Congress are preparing legal challenges. Senator Elizabeth Warren called the pocket rescissions “an end-run around the Constitution.” Representative Jerry Nadler is drafting legislation to force transparency on all deferrals. But time is running out. With the debt ceiling fight looming in September, lawmakers are distracted.
What’s Next? The Labor Department Could Be Next
According to an administration insider, if the $9.4 billion rescissions package approved by the House fails in the Senate, the White House will pivot to a second pocket rescission targeting the Department of Labor—potentially canceling billions in job training and unemployment programs. The goal? Force a showdown before the fiscal year ends.
Meanwhile, agencies are being told to “prioritize core missions.” But with funding frozen, “core” means whatever the White House says it means.
Why This Matters
This isn’t just about cuts. It’s about control. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. For 50 years, presidents have respected that—mostly. Now, a new playbook is being tested: freeze first, justify later. If it works, future administrations—Democrat or Republican—will have a new tool to bypass Congress. And the federal budget, once a deliberative process, becomes a presidential directive.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is this different from regular budget cuts?
Regular cuts require Congress to vote them down or approve them. Pocket rescissions let the president unilaterally cancel funds if Congress doesn’t act within a tight window—usually near the fiscal year’s end. This turns the process upside down: instead of Congress authorizing spending, the White House cancels it and forces Congress to stop the cancellation.
Is this legal?
It’s legally murky. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 was passed after Nixon tried similar tactics. It requires presidential rescissions to be approved by Congress. But by waiting until September, the administration exploits the clock. Courts have never ruled on a late-year pocket rescission this large. Legal scholars say it’s a test case—and it could reach the Supreme Court.
Who benefits from these cuts?
Defense contractors and private prison operators stand to gain from increased Homeland Security and defense spending. Charter schools will see a $60 million boost. But programs helping low-income families, climate researchers, and international peace efforts are being gutted. The administration claims savings will go to taxpayers—but the money isn’t being returned to the public; it’s being redirected to other federal priorities.
What happens if Congress tries to reverse the cuts?
They’d need to pass a new appropriations bill, which requires presidential signature—or a two-thirds override. With the debt ceiling looming and partisan divisions deep, that’s nearly impossible before September 30. Once funds are canceled under pocket rescission, they’re gone unless Congress passes new legislation—which can’t happen until the next fiscal year.
Has this ever been done before?
Not on this scale. The last major pocket rescission was in 1975 under President Ford. Since then, presidents have avoided it, fearing constitutional backlash. The Trump administration’s $5 billion cut in August 2025 is the largest in modern history—and the first to target foreign aid so aggressively. It’s a precedent.
What’s the timeline for the next move?
The fiscal year ends September 30, 2025. The administration is expected to announce a second pocket rescission targeting the Department of Labor by mid-September, if the $9.4 billion package fails in the Senate. Agencies are already being told to prepare for further freezes. By October 1, these cuts could become permanent.
