Oregon Sen. Merkley calls out Republican colleagues, says ‘if they have any integrity or any spine, they will join us in ending’ President Trump’s pocket rescission practice

Oregon – “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,” Oregon Sen. Jeff Merkley said Sept. 26 after the Trump administration moved to cancel hundreds of millions of dollars in spending that Congress had already approved.

Merkley’s comments came after President Donald Trump and the Office of Management and Budget announced a new “pocket rescission” involving roughly $810 million in congressionally approved funding. The administration described the action as a way to eliminate what it considers wasteful or harmful spending, while critics in both parties have argued that the move improperly bypasses Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.

The White House said the action targeted nearly $1 billion in spending across several areas, including $567 million in funding for services involving refugees, asylum seekers and other noncitizens through the Department of Health and Human Services. Other reductions involved programs at the Departments of Education, Commerce, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development and Justice, as well as international assistance programs.

The administration argued that the programs no longer represented an appropriate use of taxpayer money. In announcing the cuts, the White House said Trump was using a rarely invoked authority to eliminate spending it characterized as harmful and wasteful.

Merkley, however, described the maneuver as an “illegal line item veto,” arguing that the president was effectively changing a bipartisan spending agreement after it had already become law.

“A pocket rescission is an illegal line item veto,” Merkley wrote. “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.”

Merkley argued that Congress, rather than the president, has the authority to determine which programs receive federal funding and at what level. He said allowing a president to selectively cancel spending after Congress has approved it would undermine the separation of powers.

The dispute has drawn criticism not only from Democrats but also from at least one prominent Republican senator. Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Congress received the $810 million package “without warning or consultation” and accused the administration of undermining Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. Collins said she would work with lawmakers to address what she called unlawful actions.

Collins also pointed to the Government Accountability Office, which has previously concluded that the federal government cannot use a pocket rescission to allow appropriated funds to expire before Congress has the full statutory period to consider the president’s rescission request.

Under the Impoundment Control Act, a president can propose that Congress rescind appropriated funds. Congress generally has 45 days of continuous session to consider such a request. The controversy surrounding a pocket rescission centers on the timing: if the administration waits until shortly before the money expires, Congress may not have a meaningful opportunity to act before the funds become unavailable.

In this case, the administration announced the latest action just five days before the end of the federal fiscal year, significantly narrowing the time available for Congress to respond. The Washington Post reported that the House was also out of session through the November election, further limiting lawmakers’ ability to intervene before the funds expired.

Reuters reported that the action represented another escalation in the broader fight between the Trump administration and Congress over control of federal spending. The news agency noted that the Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, while the administration maintained that the president could use the pocket-rescission mechanism to prevent funding from being spent.

The latest dispute also follows a similar confrontation from 2025. Trump previously used the rarely invoked mechanism to block billions of dollars in foreign aid that Congress had approved. The Supreme Court ultimately allowed the administration to proceed while litigation continued, but its decision was tied in significant part to the president’s authority over foreign affairs and did not definitively resolve whether the broader pocket-rescission practice is lawful for domestic spending.

The distinction is significant because this year’s rescissions primarily involve domestic programs. The Washington Post reported that the administration is now using the tactic against funding for programs inside the United States, including services for refugees and unaccompanied minors, as well as education, housing and minority-business initiatives.

Merkley, who serves as ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, has argued that Congress needs to reassert its authority over federal appropriations. In a separate statement issued Sept. 25, he accused Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought of sending the rescissions “in the dark of night” and said Congress must make clear that money approved by lawmakers and signed into law cannot simply be clawed back without congressional approval.

The White House has rejected that interpretation, maintaining that Trump is using existing presidential authority under the Impoundment Control Act and describing the spending being canceled as programs that do not serve the interests of American taxpayers. The administration has also pointed to changes in immigration and border conditions as justification for eliminating some of the funding.

The dispute therefore centers on a broader constitutional question over the balance between the executive and legislative branches. Merkley and other critics say allowing the president to cancel individual portions of enacted spending bills would give the White House a power similar to a line-item veto, which Congress has traditionally exercised through the appropriations process. The administration argues that the president has legal authority to withhold certain funds under the existing framework.

As the new fiscal year approaches, the fight over the $810 million package is expected to keep pressure on Congress to determine how it will respond to the administration’s use of pocket rescissions. For Merkley, the issue goes beyond the individual programs targeted by Trump and instead concerns whether a president should be able to unilaterally alter spending decisions that Congress has already made.

The Oregon senator is calling on Republicans who previously opposed such executive actions to join Democrats in challenging the practice, arguing that the same precedent could eventually be used by a future Democratic president against Republican-backed programs. His warning has turned the latest rescission fight into another confrontation over presidential power, congressional authority and the limits of executive control over federal spending.