By John Q. Hosedrinker 
The Trump White House is planning a second rescissions request, potentially targeting the Department of Education, following approval of an initial package by Congress. The administration is also considering “pocket rescissions,” a controversial strategy to declare congressionally approved funds rescinded near the fiscal year’s end, which critics like Bobby Kogan and Senator Susan Collins argue is illegal. This tactic, if employed, would likely lead to a legal challenge, as the Government Accountability Office has previously stated that pocket rescissions violate the Impoundment Control Act. Some senators, including Senator Mike Rounds, advise against the move and suggest using the appropriations process.
Read the original article here
The Trump administration is preparing to wield a significant, and potentially unprecedented, level of control over the federal budget, specifically by manipulating the process of “rescissions,” which is the executive branch’s ability to request that Congress cancel already-appropriated funds.
Under the existing framework, the administration submits a formal rescissions request, which then triggers a 45-day window during which the executive branch can withhold the funds in question. However, a key vulnerability exists. If the administration strategically delays its request, perhaps by sending it just before the end of the fiscal year, the White House could potentially hold back the funds for that entire period. Then, once the fiscal year concludes, the administration could claim that the funding has simply expired, regardless of whether Congress took any action on the rescissions package.
This is essentially a “pocket rescission,” allowing the administration to sidestep Congress’s budgetary decisions and effectively divert funds at will. This circumvention of legislative authority allows the administration to choose which programs to defund. This threatens healthcare, education, food assistance, and public health, among many other essential programs.
It’s important to acknowledge that the true issue is not a forceful “seizure” in the traditional sense. Rather, this is about the Republicans in Congress actively handing over their power. Many express a feeling of deep discouragement as they witness the erosion of democratic norms at an accelerated pace.
The concerns center on the Republican party’s actions and how they are using their power in Washington. Some commentators feel that bipartisanship is weaponized, and the ultimate goal of the Republican party is to undermine democracy.
The focus turns to the potential exploitation of budgetary processes. It’s argued that the administration has already taken steps to undermine Congress’s control over spending, for example, by withholding funds that Congress had already approved, based on the argument that these programs did not align with the administration’s policies. This is another instance of this power grab.
Many commentators are voicing concerns about the scope and implications of this power grab, and the potential for abuse.
The worry is that the administration will now have control over budgetary matters without congressional approval. And as one senator stated: “They’re letting Donald Trump decide for himself which programs to defund, and that puts everything at risk — health care, education, food assistance, public health…Everything — everything — becomes at risk.” This is a sentiment shared by many.
One comment is a scathing critique of the administration, and it questions how the Republican party can allow the executive branch such power.
The argument is that if the Trump administration can withhold federal funds, then the next administration could be able to do the same. Some comments acknowledge that this represents a shift toward a more authoritarian system of government.
There are also some who view this as a sign of fascism. The overall sense is one of powerlessness and the feeling that the American experiment in democracy is nearing its end.
The fact that this is happening at breakneck speed has taken many by surprise.
There is a shared sense that the country is at a critical juncture.
The implication of all this is that Congress has already forfeited its power. They are the ones who are handing it over. There is a feeling that this is what will happen in the new order.
Some are questioning whether a future administration could use the same tactics, and if this would be within their power as well. Some commentators acknowledge that this represents a shift toward a more authoritarian system of government.
Some point out that the Supreme Court has ruled that, essentially, the only check on the executive branch’s power is impeachment, making Trump’s authority essentially unchecked unless Congress acts to remove him.
The concerns are not just about one individual; the scope of the power that could be wielded by the next president is under discussion.