Democracy Watch - GAO Says White House Cannot Run Out the Clock on $810 Million Congress Approved

The dispute is not simply about which programs deserve funding. It is about whether a president can cancel federal spending without obtaining a vote from Congress.

By Walter Sundiata | On The Corner - RadioActive1 WBOB | September 30, 2026

The White House calls it a “pocket rescission.”

The Government Accountability Office calls it unlawful.

At stake is approximately $810 million that Congress approved for housing counseling, refugee assistance, migrant education, health research, minority-business development and other federal programs.

But the larger dispute is not about the size of the package—or even the merits of the programs being targeted.

It is about who controls the nation’s money.

A cancellation without a congressional vote

On September 25, President Donald Trump sent Congress a request to cancel funding from 11 federal accounts. At the same time, the Office of Management and Budget directed the affected agencies to withhold the money.

Presidents may ask Congress to rescind previously approved spending. Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, Congress is ordinarily given time to consider the request.

This proposal, however, arrived only five days before the September 30 expiration of the appropriations—and while the House was away from Washington.

That timing is the mechanism behind the so-called pocket rescission. By withholding the money until it expires, the administration can effectively eliminate the funding even though Congress never voted to cancel it.

The White House says the affected programs are wasteful, unnecessary or inconsistent with administration policy. Its September 25 statement criticized spending associated with immigration services, diversity initiatives, international education and environmental programs. Read the White House’s explanation.

GAO did not evaluate those policy arguments. Its concern was whether the president possesses the legal authority to make the cancellation without congressional approval.

Its answer was no.

What the congressional watchdog concluded

In a September 29 decision, GAO said the Impoundment Control Act permits only a temporary withholding while Congress considers a rescission request. It does not allow the president to prevent appropriations from being used until they expire.

“The President may not force the expiration of budget authority Congress has already enacted and did not rescind,” GAO concluded.

The watchdog found that all 11 affected accounts were scheduled to expire at the end of the fiscal year. Congress’s statutory review period, meanwhile, would continue until at least November 9—more than a month after the money became unavailable.

In other words, Congress was theoretically being given time to consider the proposal after the proposal had already accomplished its purpose.

GAO said that permitting the maneuver would subvert both the constitutional process for making federal law and Congress’s power of the purse. Read GAO’s complete decision.

What the $810 million supports

The proposed cancellations include:

• Approximately $567 million for refugee and entrant assistance administered through the Department of Health and Human Services.

• Nearly $70 million for international education and foreign-language programs.

• Approximately $56.1 million for housing-counseling services.

• Nearly $28 million for health-care research.

• Approximately $25 million for programs serving migrant students.

• $15 million for the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service.

• $10 million for Minority Business Development Agency programs.

• Additional funding connected to immigration case management and international conservation.

Those descriptions do not tell us how every dollar would have been spent, nor do they settle legitimate questions about program effectiveness. Congress and the administration may debate, audit, reduce or eliminate federal programs through the processes established by law.

GAO’s conclusion is narrower: the president cannot achieve that result simply by waiting until Congress’s money expires.

The dispute moves into federal court

Ten nonprofit organizations filed a federal lawsuit on September 29 challenging the $56.1 million cancellation affecting housing counseling.

The plaintiffs say HUD’s delays and funding restrictions have already forced organizations to use reserve funds, reduce services, lay off employees or withdraw from the program.

Housing counselors assist prospective homebuyers, tenants, homeowners facing foreclosure and families experiencing housing instability. The plaintiffs are asking the court to stop HUD from allowing the appropriation to expire and to administer the program as Congress directed.

Their complaint raises claims under federal appropriations law, the Administrative Procedure Act and the First Amendment. Those allegations have not yet been decided by a judge. Read the federal complaint.

A last-minute Senate effort to block this and future pocket rescissions failed on September 30 when Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin objected to taking up the legislation by unanimous consent.

Unless a court intervenes or the administration releases the funding before the fiscal year closes, the affected appropriations will expire at midnight.

Why this matters beyond one funding package

The Constitution gives Congress—not the president—the authority to appropriate federal money.

A president can recommend cuts. Agencies can identify waste. Congress can rescind appropriations. Voters can hold lawmakers accountable for the choices they make.

A pocket rescission changes that relationship. It gives the executive branch a way to obtain through timing what it did not obtain through legislation.

If that practice becomes accepted, future presidents could use it against any program they oppose—regardless of which party controls the White House or which communities depend upon the funding.

That is why criticism has crossed party lines. Senator Susan Collins of Maine, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, called the maneuver illegal and an attempt to undermine Congress’s constitutional authority. The administration maintains that the Impoundment Control Act permits its approach and that the targeted spending should not continue.

The courts may ultimately determine which interpretation prevails.

The Northeast Ohio connection

No verified accounting yet shows precisely how much of the $810 million was destined for Ohio’s 13th Congressional District.

Still, the affected program areas have clear relevance to Akron, Canton and surrounding communities. Northeast Ohio organizations provide housing counseling, refugee resettlement, educational assistance, health services and support for small and minority-owned businesses.

The immediate local impact should be established grant by grant. The broader constitutional impact requires no such estimate.

Congress approved the money. The administration opposed the spending. Rather than securing congressional agreement, it attempted to let the calendar make the final decision.

That is the question at the center of this Democracy Watch report:

Can the president erase part of a law simply by refusing to carry it out until time expires?