Senate Appropriations Committee Ranking Member Patty Murray (D-WA) and Senate Budget Committee Ranking Member Jeff Merkley’s (D-OR) attempt to pass a bill blocking the $810 million “pocket rescission” the Trump White House sent over to Congress last week failed Wednesday evening.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) objected to Democrats’ request seeking unanimous consent on the Senate floor on their bill to nullify President Donald Trump’s most recent illegal pocket rescissions. Since Murray and Merkley were seeking unanimous consent — a procedural move to fast track a bill and bypass roll call votes — one Republican objection was enough to derail the effort.
Johnson said he was “happy” to reject the unanimous consent request from Democrats, claiming both that the Impoundment Control Act is poorly written and that the pocket rescission request from the White House was not big enough, as he gave a lengthy speech about the national deficit.
“I personally am glad, I don’t care who the president is or what party, I will generally support that president reducing spending. And I’d applaud it,” he said from the Senate floor objecting to Democrats’ request. “So I’m happy to allow the president to do pocket rescissions, other types of rescissions — whatever it takes because Congress is certainly not fiscally responsible.”
The proposed bill would have also prevented the president from attempting to use a pocket rescission in the future by forbidding any president from submitting rescissions requests under the Impoundment Control Act of 1964 within 90 days of when the funds expire.
Pocket rescissions describes a loophole Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought and his allies believe they have found in the budgeting process that, they claim, allows them to declare congressionally approved funding rescinded if a rescissions package is sent to Congress close to the end of the fiscal year when funds will expire.
A formal rescissions request starts a 45-day clock in which the executive branch is allowed to withhold the cash in question while it awaits Congress’ permission to not to spend it. But if the request comes in 45 days before the new fiscal year is set to begin, Vought contends, the White House could withhold the money for that timeframe, regardless of whether Congress takes action on the package, and then claim that the funding is expired with the end of the fiscal year.
Murray and Merkley’s proposed bill would see Congress act on the request, sidelining the White House scheme to simply run out the clock by sending a rescission request at the last minute.
The Government Accountability Office, a nonpartisan legislative branch agency tasked with deciding if the president is impounding funds in violation of the ICA, has previously declared that pocket rescissions violate the law.
On Tuesday, in a letter to congressional leaders, the GAO reasserted that position and declared the most recent pocket rescission attempt as illegal.
“The rescission proposals contained in the President’s September 25, 2026, special message to Congress do not permit the President to withhold the appropriations beyond the end of fiscal year 2026,” the GAO said.
In a Friday statement, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) said the move is “the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress’s Constitutional power of the purse.”
“This move shows that OMB intentionally withheld these funds for months to execute this unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law,” Collins said.
Will this bill have to be passed by the House and signed by the president?
If so, there’s at least two problems there.
Since this is inadvertently the first post: Edited to add an uncuddly animal that was recently posted in another thread:
They might be able to get the 2/3 majority in the Senate that would make the bill not subject to a presidential veto, but the House is an entirely different animal, or, as your image suggests, a different part of an animal. The only hope is that the entire House is up for reelection, and there might be enough on the wrong side of the aisle who’ll want to put a little distance between themselves and Trump and Vought’s executive branch between now and November.
So, I’m not sure what’s going on. Googling the Impoundment Act of 1974 (not 1964), here are the guts of the Act:
(Note: The correct enactment year is 1974, passed as Title X of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act in response to President Richard Nixon’s widespread refusal to spend appropriated money). [1, 2, 3]
Core Purpose and Mechanisms
The Power of the Purse: Under Article I of the Constitution, Congress holds the power to allocate federal funds, meaning the executive branch is legally expected to spend money as directed by law. [1, 2]
Deferrals (Temporary Pauses): The president may temporarily delay spending for specific programmatic reasons or contingencies, but the withholding cannot extend past the end of the fiscal year, and written notice must be given to Congress. [1, 2]
Rescissions (Permanent Cancellations): If the president wants to cancel funding permanently, they must formally request a rescission from Congress via a special message. Funds can only be withheld for up to 45 days while awaiting congressional approval; if Congress does not vote to approve the cancellation within that window, the money must be spent. [1, 2, 3]
As can be seen, the Act already precludes the withholding of funds unless Congress approves upon request. Why the Senate feels it has to pass new laws under these circumstances makes no sense.
This GOP simply cannot play by the rules. These Unites States - Trump - it don’t do Constitution-type governance.
There are more horse’s asses than horses in this country…