The Little-Known Strategy That Could Supercharge Trump’s Spending Cuts

With the end of the fiscal year approaching on September 30, President Donald Trump may have a rare chance to cancel billions in federal spending without having to slog through congressional gridlock by using a little-known tool called a pocket rescission. Here’s how it would work and why it might be a game-changer in fulfilling Trump’s mandate to cut government waste, fraud, and abuse.

How Rescissions Work

Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA), the President can send a “rescission message” identifying specific programs, projects, or agencies that he wants defunded, along with the rationale and fiscal impact of the cuts. Congress then has 45 days of continuous session (excluding recesses) to approve all or part of the proposal through a simple majority vote in both chambers.

If Congress votes against rescinding the funds or does nothing at all, the funds are released back to the agencies, who must spend the money as originally authorized.

However, if the fiscal year ends before the 45-day window expires, the money automatically lapses and cannot be spent — even if lawmakers do nothing. This is known as a pocket rescission.

That timing quirk allows the White House to target wasteful or politically unpopular spending late in the fiscal year, when Congress has little opportunity to intervene.

Not a New Idea

Pocket rescissions are rare but not unprecedented. In 1975, President Gerald Ford used the tactic to let $10 million in proposed cuts lapse before Congress could reject them.

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has said that the episode revealed a flaw in the ICA and recommended changes to the law to prevent funds from expiring before lawmakers could act. Yet in the nearly 50 years since then, Congress has taken no action — a fact some might say undercuts any claim that lawmakers are truly concerned about closing the loophole.

Presidents have had mixed success with standard, non-pocket rescissions. Ronald Reagan secured more than $15 billion in cuts during his first two years in office, but most of his later requests were rejected. Before the start of Trump’s second term earlier this year, Congress had approved just $5.97 billion in presidential rescissions since Reagan’s early successes. Neither George W. Bush nor Barack Obama used the authority at all.

Trump, during his first term, proposed rescissions totaling more than $15 billion in 2018, much of it aimed at expired or duplicative programs. That package passed the House but stalled in the Senate. A later $27 billion proposal was ignored by the Democrat-controlled Congress.

The H.R. 4 Blueprint

Earlier this year, Trump submitted a $9.4 billion rescissions package prepared by the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) that targeted what supporters described as some of the worst cases of waste, fraud, and abuse in the federal budget. Congress passed the measure in June as H.R. 4, the Rescissions Act of 2025.

That legislation eliminated $8.3 billion in foreign aid, including funding critics said advanced left-wing ideological agendas abroad at U.S. taxpayers’ expense. It also rescinded $203 million from failed United Nations missions, $169 million from international bodies such as the World Health Organization and U.N. Human Rights Council, $33 million in unused appropriations, and $1.1 billion in subsidies to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which has a long history of prioritizing liberal activism ahead of nonpartisan information dissemination.

AMAC Action backed H.R. 4 and urged its passage, pointing out that inflation and deficit spending are especially harmful to seniors on fixed incomes.

Why Pocket Rescissions Matter Now

The passage of H.R. 4 demonstrated that rescissions can succeed, but also showed how hard it is to advance even narrowly targeted cuts in a closely divided Congress. The challenge is compounded by Republicans’ slim margins and the tendency of some, such as Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), to side with Democrats on key votes.

A pocket rescission avoids that risk. By sending the proposal late in the fiscal year, the administration can allow the targeted funds to lapse automatically without further action from lawmakers. Supporters say it is a lawful and necessary check on bloated, politicized federal agencies.

Pocket rescissions may be one of the few remaining tools for fulfilling Trump’s pledge to “drain the swamp” and eliminate wasteful government spending.

Looking Ahead

Center for Renewing America Senior Advisor Wade Miller has argued that pocket rescissions could serve as a short-term way to curb unnecessary spending while the administration works to restore broader presidential “impoundment” authority under Article II of the Constitution. That authority, used frequently by presidents before the passage of the ICA in 1974, allowed the executive branch not to spend funds it considered wasteful.

Congress sharply limited the practice with the ICA, giving the House and Senate final say over most spending decisions. However, Trump has indicated his desire to either overturn the ICA via legislation or by challenging it in court.

Whether Trump will use pocket rescissions this year is still unclear. But in a Congress where even modest cuts face resistance, the strategy could be the clearest path yet to making good on fulfilling his promise to the American people to end the rampant waste of their hard-earned tax dollars.

Sarah Katherine Sisk is a proud Hillsdale College alumna and a master’s student in economics at George Mason University. You can follow her on X @SKSisk76.