In the political theater of Washington, D.C., the White House is gearing up for a performance aimed at giving the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) a veneer of respectability. The stage is set with a rescission package, soon to be sent to Capitol Hill, in what appears to be an elaborate attempt to legitimize DOGE’s controversial actions within the federal government.
Since the start of Trump’s term, the administration and DOGE have been on a unilateral spending – slashing spree, cutting billions of dollars in federal funding that had already been approved by Congress. President Trump has shuttered the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and folded it into the State Department, axing hundreds of foreign aid programs. While some of these drastic cuts have been blocked by federal judges, the overall threat to crucial federal services looms large.
The upcoming rescission package is expected to include $9.3 billion in cuts to various entities, with a staggering $8 billion earmarked for foreign aid, along with cuts to the State Department, National Public Radio (NPR), and the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). Republican lawmakers, eager to save face with the public, have been urging the Trump administration to formalize these unilateral cuts through a rescission package. This soon – to – arrive package is the administration’s first attempt at doing just that, but it comes with a twist that undermines the very essence of the constitutional process for allocating funds.
Historically, the rescission process was designed to bring unspent funds, approved by Congress, into compliance with the law. Presidents are required to submit a detailed special message to Congress, outlining the amount to be rescinded, the reasons behind it, the affected accounts, and the expected fiscal and economic impacts. Once submitted, a 45 – day countdown begins, during which Congress can approve, reject, or ignore the request. During this period, the executive branch can delay spending the funds.
However, the Trump administration is taking a backward approach. Instead of following the process and seeking Congress’ approval before making cuts, it has been freezing large chunks of federal funding first and then planning to ask for permission later. As Georgetown Law School professor David Super pointed out, “a lot of the money involved here, the President already started holding well before sending the special message.” This deviation from the norm could trigger pushback, as the Impoundment Control Act limits the President’s ability to hold funds to 45 days after submitting the request.
The origin of the rescission process can be traced back to 1972 when President Richard Nixon unlawfully withheld funding from numerous programs. After losing in court and facing a unanimous Supreme Court decision against him, Congress created the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This act gave presidents the power to request the cancellation of previously appropriated funds through the rescission process, while also allowing for a limited period of fund impoundment during the congressional review.
Since then, presidents have used the rescission process, with mixed results. Between 1974 and 2000, presidents requested rescissions totaling $76 billion, with Congress accepting $25 billion of those cuts. However, the executive branch’s rescission authority hasn’t been successfully utilized since 2000. In 2018, during Trump’s first administration, a $15.3 billion rescission request, including a significant cut to the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP), was rejected by the GOP – controlled Senate.
This time around, experts anticipate that some senators may be hesitant to approve the massive cuts proposed in the rescission package, especially those related to foreign aid. Rachel Snyderman of the Bipartisan Policy Center noted that senators might view the package differently due to sensitivities around foreign assistance and the U.S.’s role in soft diplomacy.
The upcoming battle over the rescission package is not just about budget cuts; it’s a test of the balance of power between the executive and legislative branches. It remains to be seen whether Congress will fall in line with the Trump administration’s attempt to make DOGE’s actions seem like a normal, law – abiding operation, or if it will stand firm in defense of its authority over federal spending.编辑分享
