Susan Collins says the White House “illegally” canceled $810 million that Congress already approved, igniting a fresh fight over who controls your tax dollars.
Story Highlights
- Sen. Susan Collins accused the administration of an “unlawful cancellation” of $810 million already approved by Congress.
- Reports say the package landed near the fiscal-year deadline, limiting time for Congress to respond.
- The Government Accountability Office has said “pocket rescissions” are not allowed under the Impoundment Control Act.
- White House allies argue the law’s 45-day window allows late-year withholding until funds expire.
Collins Targets Timing and Process as a Power-of-the-Purse Clash
Sen. Susan Collins said the White House sent an $810 million cancellation “without warning or consultation,” calling it an “unlawful cancellation of appropriations” that Congress passed and the President signed. Reports describe a maneuver near the end of the fiscal year, which limits how Congress can react before the money expires. Collins framed the move as an attack on Congress’s power of the purse, saying the delay worked like an unreported impoundment that undermined the lawmaking branch.
Coverage across outlets matched the core facts: the administration moved to cancel roughly $810 million that Congress already approved. Outlets described this as a “pocket rescission,” meaning the President proposes cuts so late that the funds expire before Congress can act. This dispute turns on the Impoundment Control Act, which says Congress has 45 legislative days to approve any rescission request. Critics say running out the clock defeats that process and violates the law’s purpose.
What the Law Says, and Why the Government Watchdog Matters
The Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan arm of Congress, has said pocket rescissions are unlawful under the Impoundment Control Act. That view holds that the law requires money to be made available if Congress does not pass a rescission bill during the review window. Critics argue late-year holds flip that rule by letting funds expire untouched. They say that outcome cuts Congress out and lets the executive cancel spending on its own, which the law aimed to block after the 1970s impoundment fights.
White House defenders point to the statute’s 45-day withholding authority. They argue it does not bar a late rescission message and does not require agencies to release funds before the 45 days end, even if the money would expire meanwhile. A White House official said the approach stands on “firm legal ground” and could win in court, reflecting a direct dispute with the Government Accountability Office’s reading. That legal split, not just politics, is driving the current clash over the end-of-year timing.
Policy Stakes: Spending Targets and Conservative Priorities
Reports said the package targeted programs tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion, as well as benefits for noncitizens. Many conservatives want those funds cut because they see them as part of a woke agenda and a magnet for illegal immigration. The administration’s supporters cast the move as basic stewardship: stop waste, stop ideological projects, and respect taxpayers. They also say late-year holds are a lawful tool to keep unwise spending from slipping through as the fiscal clock runs down.
Susan Collins Slams Trump Admin Over ‘Illegal Actions’
“Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) accused Trump’s admin of taking ‘illegal actions’ Friday after it moved to cancel $810 million in congressionally approved funding without lawmakers’ consent.”
“The White House announced…
1/2— ˶˃ News Reader Cat 📰🗞️NO DMs˂˶ (@typocatCAv2) September 26, 2026
Collins, a senior appropriator, warned that process still matters. She said even disliked programs must be addressed the right way: pass a rescission bill or live with the law Congress wrote. The record shared so far does not include the full rescission memo or a line-item breakdown, which limits outside review of each account and whether some funds had already been obligated. That gap keeps legal questions open, but the core fight remains clear: Can timing alone erase spending that Congress approved and the President signed?
Why This Fight Matters to Readers
Americans want a government that lives within its means. They also want leaders to follow the Constitution. The Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse. If any White House, from either party, can cancel spending by waiting out the clock, that rewrites the rules without a vote. If, instead, the law permits end-of-year holds, Congress may need to tighten statutes to protect its role. Either way, this battle will shape how your money is controlled next year and beyond.
Sources:
nytimes.com, wfaa.com, yahoo.com, politicalwire.com, msn.com, ground.news, latimes.com
