The White House announced Friday that it would cut $810 million in bipartisan, congressionally approved funding using a budgetary tactic known as pocket rescissions, a rare method previously used by the Trump administration. This approach involves the executive branch unilaterally canceling funds without waiting for Congress to formally approve or reject the move, which critics argue violates the balance of power between the branches of government. The affected funding supports various programs and agencies that serve immigrants, minority groups, and research initiatives under the Department of Health and Human Services. The administration claims that when a rescission occurs less than 45 days before the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30, the law does not require Congress to act, but this argument has been challenged in court and criticized by both Republican and Democratic lawmakers. The House of Representatives is not scheduled to reconvene until after the midterm elections in November, which has left lawmakers unable to respond quickly to the move. The White House described the rejected funding as “the most harmful government spending,” emphasizing its belief that the funds do not benefit American citizens. President Trump has previously committed to using all available tools to cut what he calls wasteful government spending. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, called the administration’s action “unlawful,” arguing that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute the cancellation of appropriations that were approved by Congress and signed into law. She stressed that OMB, as part of the executive branch, does not have the authority to decide which programs are worth funding. Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., who serves as vice chair of the Appropriations Committee, condemned the move as a “theft from the American people” and criticized OMB Director Russ Vought for undermining Congress’s authority. “Russ Vought’s message to Congress is that your votes don’t count, and your laws are optional,” Murray said in a statement. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., also criticized the tactic, stating that the Trump administration is “illegally stripping nearly $1 billion in critical funding” that supports children, K-12 students, small businesses, and health and clean air research. Schumer added that Senate Democrats will “challenge Trump’s illegal cuts.” The White House listed several programs it rejected, claiming the funds were being “wasted.” These include support for nongovernmental organizations that assist immigrants and refugees, housing counseling services, and programs that bring foreign students and faculty to U.S. academic institutions. The administration also cut funding for the Community Relations Services, a subagency of the Justice Department established under the Civil Rights Act. Other affected programs included debt relief for countries implementing climate change policies and assistance for minority business owners. The White House also cited “overfunded and unaligned” HHS research programs and returned funds for the department’s Office of Minority Health. Trump previously used pocket rescissions to announce $4.9 billion in cuts last year, including significant reductions to USAID and funding for global peacekeeping efforts. Although these cuts were challenged in court, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the administration in September 2025. In July 2025, Congress approved a rescissions package that eliminated $9 billion in foreign aid and funding for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting, which supports NPR and PBS. Lawyers for the Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan federal agency, have argued that pocket rescissions are illegal, as they allow a president to bypass Congress and change the law by shortening the period for which funds are available. Despite the controversy, the White House continues to support the use of this tactic, citing the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was designed to limit the president’s power to withhold funds.