🧵CONGRESS decided that these funds would lapse on September 30. CONGRESS decided to grant itself an expedited…

🧵CONGRESS decided that these funds would lapse on September 30. CONGRESS decided to grant itself an expedited procedure to consider rescinding funds and told the President to hold the funds while Congress decides whether to rescind. CONGRESS decided not to limit the time period in which the President can send a rescission. CONGRESS was told by GAO in 1975 that pocket rescissions are permitted and to amend the text to prevent pocket rescissions. CONGRESS has amended the ICA several times but has let this provision allowing pocket rescissions to stay in place. We are just using the system CONGRESS established and never changed despite being told by your own GAO to change it. We will continue to use the tools CONGRESS provided to save taxpayer dollars from going to (just a few examples): $567 million for social services for illegal aliens $15 million in welfare for illegal aliens $9 million to bail out foreign country climate change policies $56 million for NGO DEI and race discrimination

Senator Jeff Merkley@SenJeffMerkley · Sep 26, 2026

A pocket rescission is an illegal line item veto. It is the president saying that he and he alone will convert a bipartisan spending bill (that has been signed into law) into a partisan spending bill. He is canceling the lines of spending he doesn't like. This violates the core separation of powers embedded in our constitution in which it is the Congress, not the president, who decides what programs are designed and at what level they are funded. Republican colleagues said they would never let this happen. Well here it is. They should ask themselves: "How would I like to have a Democratic president canceling out the Republican flavored programs he or she doesn't like in a bipartisan spending bill that has been signed into law?" If they have any integrity or any spine, they will join us in ending this practice. politico.com/news/2026/09/2…

GAO is WRONG on pocket rescissions. The TEXT of the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) specifically allows for pocket rescissions and GAO previously agreed with this view for 43 years – until 2018 (during Trump 45 Administration) when it abruptly reversed its position. GAO is an arm of CONGRESS – it is not independent. Worse, it is not even nonpartisan. Rather, since 2018, GAO has been infected with an extreme case of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Thankfully, the Supreme Court stepped in last year to allow President Trump’s August 2025 pocket rescission to go forward. Some history on Congress and GAO recognizing that the ICA allows pocket rescissions. The ICA allows the President to propose to Congress rescinding funds and allows him to withhold these funds for 45 days, while Congress considers the proposal. There is no time limit on when POTUS can send up proposal. Thus, the President is permitted to send up a rescission package under the ICA, and funds may lapse during the 45 days withholding period. Congress has long been aware that the ICA permits pocket rescissions. In fact, in a December 15, 1975, opinion, GAO told Congress to amend this provision, writing that it’s “a major deficiency in the Impoundment Control Act. We believe Congress should have the affirmative means within the Act to handle rescissions” including “changing the Act to prevent funds from lapsing where the 45-day period has not expired.” Despite amending various provisions of the ICA over the years, Congress has never amended the language that permits pocket rescissions. In 1983, in an unrelated case, the Supreme Court held that legislative veto provisions are unconstitutional. In 1987, the D.C. Circuit held that the ICA’s legislative veto provision on deferrals was unconstitutional and the ICA’s entire deferral section was unconstitutional. Later in 1987, Congress enacted a comprehensive amendment to the ICA, including by restoring the deferral provision without the unconstitutional legislative veto. Congress also amended the rescission provision by prohibiting the same funds from being proposed for rescission twice. Importantly, Congress did NOT amend the ICA to prohibit pocket rescissions despite GAO specifically recommending it in 1975. Congress rejected this and left in place the exact language that permits pocket rescissions, knowing full well its implications. Thus, Congress ratified that pocket rescissions are permissible. Legislation has been repeatedly proposed, as recently as this year, to prohibit pocket rescissions. It has failed each time. In its blog post in August 2025 (link below), GAO says its views on the ICA pocket rescission have “evolved,” but nowhere admits that it had issued an opinion in 1975 finding that the ICA permits pocket rescissions and that it recommended that Congress should change the ICA to prevent them. GAO also does not mention that Congress amended the ICA, including the rescissions sections, but never changed the language permitting pocket rescissions. Finally, GAO’s claim that a Supreme Court decision made them change its position is just flat out false. No Supreme Court case affects GAO’s 1975 opinion that pocket rescissions are permissible. GAO reversed its position of 43 years simply out of a desire to thwart President Trump’s agenda. It’s driven by Trump Derangement Syndrome. Last August, the Supreme Court decisively rejected the Left’s attempt to reverse President Trump’s pocket rescission. Yet, GAO apparently has no time for Supreme Court decisions with which it disagrees. Shame on GAO. This Administration will continue to use its lawful authorities to get wins for the American people.