In the intricate dance between a president and Congress over federal spending, a little-known and highly controversial move known as a “pocket rescission” has re-emerged in the national conversation. This maneuver, a presidential attempt to block congressionally approved funds without legislative consent, strikes at the heart of the constitutional balance of power. While it may sound similar to a veto, it operates in a legal gray area that has fueled debate for decades.

What is a Pocket Rescission?

A rescission is the formal cancellation of funds that have already been appropriated by Congress but not yet spent. Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a president can propose a rescission to Congress, which then has 45 days to vote on it. If both chambers of Congress approve the rescission bill, the funds are officially canceled. This is a standard, legal process.

A “pocket rescission,” however, is a different beast. It occurs when a president submits a rescission request to Congress so late in the fiscal year—typically within the final 45 days—that the funds in question are set to expire before Congress has time to act on the request. The president then withholds the money, effectively killing the funding without a formal vote. The name itself is a nod to the “pocket veto,” where a bill dies because the president fails to sign it before Congress adjourses.

The Legal and Constitutional Battle

The legality of a pocket rescission is a subject of intense dispute. The central argument against it is that it violates the Constitution’s “power of the purse,” which is explicitly granted to Congress in Article I, Section 9. This provision states that “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law,” a principle that has been a cornerstone of checks and balances since the nation’s founding.

Proponents of the maneuver, however, argue that the Impoundment Control Act’s 45-day window for congressional consideration gives the president the authority to withhold funds temporarily. By submitting the request just before the funds expire, they contend that the president is simply using the process as it is written, and if Congress fails to act in time, that is a failure of the legislative branch, not an overreach by the executive.

This interpretation, however, has been consistently challenged. The non-partisan Government Accountability Office (GAO), Congress’s watchdog, has issued multiple legal opinions stating that pocket rescissions are illegal. The GAO argues that the legislative history of the Impoundment Control Act, which was passed to curb a president’s unilateral power to impound funds, does not support such an interpretation.

Implications for Foreign Aid and Policy

When a president uses a pocket rescission to block foreign aid, the consequences can be significant. It creates uncertainty for international partners who rely on promised U.S. funding for critical projects, from humanitarian relief to security assistance. This can undermine diplomatic relationships and project an image of U.S. unreliability on the world stage. It also allows a president to unilaterally change foreign policy without the formal legislative process, bypassing the very checks and balances intended to prevent such actions.

Ultimately, the use of a pocket rescission is a stark reminder of the persistent tension between the executive and legislative branches over the control of federal spending. It is a powerful, though legally dubious, tool that can dramatically alter the flow of taxpayer money and reshape national priorities without the full consent of Congress. Sources