The Trump Administration Moved to Cancel $810 Million Congress Had Already Approved, Mostly for Refugees

The Trump administration notified House Speaker Mike Johnson on Friday that it intends to cancel 810 million dollars in federal funding that Congress had already appropriated, the large majority of it earmarked for refugee resettlement and services for migrants, using a legally contested manoeuvre known as a pocket rescission. CNN's report on the move describes the tactic as pausing appropriated funds for the forty five days Congress has to act on a rescission request, timed so that the fiscal year ends and the money technically expires before lawmakers can weigh in either way.

Where the cuts land

Time's breakdown of the request puts 567 million dollars of the total at the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Refugee Resettlement, with the rest spread across the Departments of Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and Justice, including 15 million dollars for a Justice Department office focused on reducing racial tension and 10 million dollars for the Minority Business Development Agency. The White House has argued it is targeting "the most harmful government spending."

Bipartisan objections

The pocket rescission drew criticism from senators in both parties. Republican Senator Susan Collins said the administration's own budget office "intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation," while Democratic Senator Jeff Merkley called it "an illegal line item veto," warning that "he is canceling the lines of spending he doesn't like. This violates the core separation of powers." The Government Accountability Office has separately argued the tactic effectively lets a president "change the law" that Congress passed, rather than merely decline to spend within it.

A tactic with a recent precedent

This is not the administration's first use of the manoeuvre. Trump attempted a similar pocket rescission in August 2025 covering 4.9 billion dollars in foreign aid, a case in which the Supreme Court allowed roughly 4 billion dollars of that funding to remain withheld while litigation proceeded, without ruling on whether pocket rescissions themselves are constitutional. That unresolved legal question now sits underneath this latest 810 million dollar cut as well, with the money set to lapse well before any court could rule on whether cancelling it was lawful in the first place.