WASHINGTON — The U.S. Government Accountability Office told congressional leaders on September 29, 2026, that President Donald Trump may not use a late fiscal-year rescission proposal to let more than $800 million in congressionally approved funds expire without Congress first voting to cancel them.
In Decision B-338788, GAO reviewed the President’s September 25 special message proposing rescissions from 11 appropriation accounts. The Office of Management and Budget also issued reapportionment instructions withholding the affected amounts from obligation. Because the accounts were scheduled to expire at the end of fiscal year 2026, the timing placed Congress’s constitutional power of the purse at the center of the dispute.
GAO’s conclusion was direct: the Impoundment Control Act permits temporary withholding while Congress considers a rescission request, but it does not allow the President to hold funds until their legal availability disappears. Unless Congress enacts a rescission bill, the money must be made available for obligation.
What happened
The President transmitted the special message on September 25—five days before the September 30 end of the fiscal year. It proposed rescissions from 11 accounts spanning multiple departments and programs. OMB then directed agencies to withhold the proposed amounts.
The Impoundment Control Act gives Congress a defined period to consider a presidential rescission proposal. GAO calculated that the review period in this matter would end no earlier than November 9, after the appropriations at issue were set to expire.
That timing created the disputed “pocket rescission.” If the executive branch could withhold the money until September 30, the funds could lapse before Congress completed its statutory review—even if Congress never passed a law rescinding a single dollar.
What GAO actually said
GAO concluded that all 11 accounts carried Treasury symbols showing that the money would expire at the end of fiscal year 2026. It then applied the text of the Impoundment Control Act: amounts proposed for rescission must be made available for obligation unless Congress completes action on a rescission bill.
The congressional watchdog emphasized that the statute allows temporary withholding, not unilateral cancellation through delay. Congress did not surrender its appropriations power when it created the rescission process.
GAO also drew an important boundary around its conclusion. It did not endorse or condemn the policy purposes of the affected programs. Its decision addressed who has legal authority to cancel enacted spending and what the executive branch must do when Congress has not agreed.
The White House position
The White House described the package as an effort to eliminate nearly $1 billion in spending it considers wasteful or harmful. Its September 25 statement highlighted funding connected to services for refugees and other noncitizens, education programs, minority-business initiatives and other domestic or international programs.
The administration’s position is that the Impoundment Control Act supplies authority for the maneuver and that late-year rescissions are a legitimate tool to protect taxpayers. The White House also points to prior executive practice and argues that agencies should not be forced to spend money on programs the President considers ineffective or contrary to administration policy.
GAO’s answer is institutional rather than partisan: policy disagreement does not alter the legal status of an appropriation. Once Congress enacts spending into law, cancellation ordinarily requires Congress to enact another law.
Why the constitutional question matters
The Constitution assigns Congress—not the President—the power to authorize federal spending. The executive branch administers appropriations, but it does not receive a general line-item veto over programs that have already become law.
The rescission process respects both branches. A President may identify spending for cancellation and send Congress a special message. Congress may agree, reject the proposal or decline to act. The temporary withholding period preserves that choice while Congress considers it. It does not transfer the final decision to the President.
A pocket rescission would change that balance through the calendar. By waiting until funds are near expiration, the executive branch could make congressional inaction operate like approval. GAO said the statute does not permit that result.
What this does—and does not—mean
GAO is an independent, nonpartisan agency within the legislative branch. Its decision is a formal interpretation issued to help Congress protect its institutional authority and oversee compliance with appropriations law.
It is not a judgment from an Article III court, and it does not by itself resolve every possible lawsuit over the package. Litigation may still determine what remedy is available, who has standing and whether particular agency actions violated the law.
But the absence of a final court judgment does not make GAO’s conclusion optional. Agencies remain responsible for obeying appropriations statutes and documenting whether funds were made available before expiration.
The money trail
The practical story will be found in agency accounts, grant records and notices to intended recipients. The special message touched programs connected to the Departments of Health and Human Services, Justice, Homeland Security, Education, Housing and Urban Development and Commerce, along with international-assistance accounts.
For communities, the distinction between “withheld,” “released” and “obligated” is not academic. A grant can be legally available on paper yet still fail to reach a recipient if the release comes too late for an agency to complete an award. A contract, allocation or notice delayed until the final hours may leave money unspent even after the formal hold is lifted.
That is why a lawful outcome must be measured through records, not announcements.
DINA analysis
The central question is whether an administration may achieve through timing what it could not achieve through legislation. GAO’s answer is no: the President may propose a cut, but Congress must enact it before appropriated funds can be canceled through the rescission process.
DINA will follow the appropriations account by account, agency by agency and recipient by recipient. The paper trail should show whether each appropriation was released before expiration, whether agencies had a meaningful opportunity to obligate it and which communities experienced consequences from the withholding.
The Constitution’s power of the purse becomes real only when lawful appropriations are administered as enacted. Transparency is therefore not a secondary issue. It is the evidence by which Congress and the public can determine whether the law was followed.
DINA public-records targets
- OMB’s September 25 reapportionment instructions and later amendments;
- agency obligation reports covering September 25 through September 30;
- internal legal memoranda concerning the Impoundment Control Act and expiration of the funds;
- communications between OMB and affected agencies;
- grant termination, suspension, cancellation or non-award notices;
- state and territory allocation tables; and
- recipient-level records for North Carolina and Puerto Rico.
Primary sources
- U.S. GAO Decision B-338788 — review of the President’s September 25 special message
- The President’s September 25, 2026 rescission special message
- White House statement describing the rescission package
- 2 U.S.C. §683 — rescission of budget authority
- Associated Press — report on the GAO decision and affected spending
This report distinguishes GAO’s formal appropriations-law decision from a court judgment and does not offer legal advice. Program descriptions attributed to the White House reflect the administration’s stated position; GAO expressly declined to take a position on the merits of the affected programs.
Democracy Independent News Association (DINA)
Independent Journalism. Public Records. Accountability.