The Trump administration announced Friday it was canceling $810 million in congressionally approved spending. These cuts target programs serving refugees, asylees, migrant students, and other non-citizens, effectively starving vital support systems for the most vulnerable. The White House justified the move by claiming these initiatives do not benefit "American citizens," a familiar refrain used to rationalize austerity for the working class and dispossessed.
The majority of the rescinded funds, some $567 million, were earmarked for Health and Human Services (HHS) programs. These programs provided critical funding to non-government organizations that support refugees, asylees, and other non-citizens. Another $25 million was cut from education programs for migrant students, with the administration specifically citing support for an "LGBT youth summit" and "Therapy for Latinx workshops" as reasons for the defunding. Programs labeled "Woke International Education" also saw $70 million in cuts. The White House stated this funding supports bringing foreign students and faculty to the United States, sometimes funding doctoral dissertations on "queer and trans community building in foreign countries."
Austerity for the Dispossessed
Further cuts targeted a Justice Department office focused on reducing racial tensions, a business development initiative for minority entrepreneurs, and Housing and Urban Development Department counseling services. A series of HHS grants, described by the administration as "outright harmful and blatantly ideological," were also eliminated. These actions represent a direct assault on the social safety net and collective resources intended to mitigate the harshest impacts of the capitalist system on marginalized communities. The White House's announcement also noted that several affected organizations are led by former officials from President Barack Obama's administration, implying a political motivation behind the cuts.
Executive Power Grab
President Donald Trump employed a "pocket rescission" to claw back these funds. This budget maneuver, which the executive branch insists is within its authority, is widely contested. Congress and the Government Accountability Office (GAO) argue it exceeds the president's constitutional powers. Sen. Susan Collins, a Republican from Maine, condemned the cuts, calling it "the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse." Collins, who faces a tough re-election campaign, highlighted the timing of the rescission. The White House proposed canceling the funding near the federal fiscal year end on Sept. 30. This timing ensures the money expires before Congress' 45-day review period can be completed. With the House of Representatives out of session through the November election, any congressional response becomes virtually impossible.
The State's Legal Shield
The independent Government Accountability Office has repeatedly concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful. They are not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act, Collins stated. The OMB, under Director Russ Vought, maintains that the Impoundment Control Act does not explicitly forbid the president from rescinding funds near the end of a fiscal year. This legalistic interpretation, summarized by the Congressional Research Service (CRS), allows the executive to bypass legislative oversight. The GAO has likened pocket rescissions to a line-item veto, a power the Supreme Court previously ruled unconstitutional. One year ago, Trump issued the first pocket rescission in nearly 50 years, seeking to cancel $4.9 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid. The Supreme Court declined to block that move, citing the president's authority over foreign affairs, allowing the litigation to continue. This pattern reveals how the state's legal apparatus can be manipulated or selectively applied to consolidate executive power and enforce policies that benefit capital by reducing social spending. The last pocket rescission before Trump's was under former President Jimmy Carter, who proposed it well before the 45-day congressional review deadline, respecting legislative process. This administration shows no such deference, prioritizing the defunding of social programs over democratic procedure.