What Are “Pocket Rescissions,” and Are They Legal

Washington is once again staring down the possibility of a government shutdown this fall. 

Unless Congress can pass the annual spending bills by the end of the month, most federal agencies will have to close up shop. Everyday services will be gutted, taxpayer dollars will be wasted, and millions who work for or with the federal government could face economic hardship.  

At the heart of the current funding dispute is Democrats’ belief President Trump may not actually spend funding authorized by Congress. They point to a $9 billion “rescissions” package that Congressional Republicans passed earlier this summer, clawing back funding that had already been agreed to in a bipartisan spending bill. 

Now, a little-used budget trick is threatening to add even more fuel to the fire: the pocket rescission. Here’s what it is, why it’s controversial, and why we haven’t seen one in nearly 50 years. 

What are Pocket Rescissions?  

Rescissions are one of the few tools presidents have to claw back spending after Congress has already approved it. Normally, the rescissions process laid out in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 is straightforward: 

  • The president sends Congress a rescission request, identifying specific funding to be withheld. 
  • That money is automatically put on hold. 
  • Congress then has 45 days to respond. 
  • If a majority of lawmakers vote yes, the money is canceled. If a majority vote no — or do nothing — the money has to be spent. 

Pocket rescission is the loophole version. The president waits until the last weeks of the fiscal year (which ends September 30th) to send the rescissions request. By the time the 45-day clock runs out, the money is already expired — and Congress never gets a real chance to act. 

Are Pocket Rescissions Legal? 

That depends on who you ask.

President Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) argues pocket rescissions are perfectly legal. Their view is simple: the text of the Impoundment Control Act’s section on rescissions doesn’t say there’s a limit on when a request can be made.  

In fact, the OMB says, the very next section of the law – dealing with a similar tactic called “deferrals” – explicitly prohibits deferrals past a certain point of the fiscal year. “If Congress wanted to similarly prevent the President from withholding funds under a rescission proposal through their expiration, it certainly knew how to do so,” OMB writes. 

On the other hand, the non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO) has long held that pocket rescissions are flat-out illegal. GAO points to the law’s requirement that funds “shall be made available” unless Congress affirmatively approves a rescission. Running out the clock, GAO says, violates that mandate. 

Even some Congressional Republicans are siding with the GAO over the White House. Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, called pocket recissions “a clear violation of the law.” Sen. Lisa Murkowski added that she “strongly objects” to the “unlawful” move.  

How Often Have Pocket Rescissions Happened? 

There is very little precedent for what President Trump is doing. Pocket rescissions are vanishingly rare. In fact, they’ve only happened twice before:  

If President Trump’s attempt is successful, it will be the first pocket rescission since 1977 – nearly 50 years ago. And it would be the biggest one by far: $4.9 billion, compared to Gerald Ford’s $10 million and Jimmy Carter’s $850k.  

That could set a powerful new precedent in the balance of power between Congress and the executive branch, and it’s coming at the exact moment lawmakers are already locked in a bitter fight to keep the government open. 

Shutdown politics are messy enough. Pocket rescissions threaten to make them messier still.