For 2nd straight year, Collins calls Trump spending move illegal

Sen. Collins confronts Trump’s “pocket rescission” of $810 million

WASHINGTON, D.C. – Senator Susan Collins (R‑Me.) has issued a sharp rebuke of President Donald Trump’s decision to withhold $810 million of federal funds that Congress had approved for the 2026 fiscal year. The move, part of a practice Trump calls a “pocket rescission,” is being challenged by Collins as an unlawful usurpation of congressional spending authority.

The White House announced the rescission on Friday, September 20. The funding, earmarked for a range of nonprofit and humanitarian programs—including health and human services, foreign university fellowships, migrant support and climate initiatives—will not be available for the remainder of the fiscal year, which ends on September 30. “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” Collins said in a statement released the day after the announcement. She is again asking the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) to file a lawsuit.

Collins, who has served in the U.S. Senate since 2001, is chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, a role that gives her significant influence over federal spending. “The Appropriations Committee would have had to get approval from the Budget Committee, which has authority over the relevant law,” she told reporters on Tuesday. “We have taken unprecedented steps to try to prevent the administration from undermining Congress’ spending decisions.”

The president’s pocket rescission follows a similar maneuver last year in which Trump held back $4.9 billion of appropriated 2025 spending. The practice, which the administration says eliminates “wasteful and harmful spending,” has been described by the GAO as illegal. The Supreme Court, however, has not ruled on the legality of pocket rescissions, allowing the practice to continue.

Collins has also clashed with the Trump administration over other spending controls. Earlier this week she led a bipartisan effort to stop a planned executive order that would have granted the White House influence over who receives medical research money. In August she worked with Democrats to block a regulation that would have politicized research funding.

“The Office of Management and Budget should have come to us and asked for the money to be transferred to a higher, better use, or asked us to approve in the proper way a rescission of the funds, and it didn’t do so,” Collins said. She has cited the GAO’s statement that a pocket rescission is illegal as evidence that the president’s actions are unlawful.

Daniel Schuman, head of the American Governance Institute, a nonprofit that supports a strong legislative branch, weighed in on the dispute. “Congress is the place where Americans come together and make decisions about how we’re going to run our country,” Schuman said. “With the president canceling spending he doesn’t like, he can decide whom he wants to help or punish. If Maine wants funding for highways or health programs, they’ll have to go like a supplicant to the president and hope he does what they need, knowing he can take it away at any moment for no reason at all.”

Schuman noted that the Trump administration has had two years to address the issue. “There could’ve been a provision that addressed this,” he said.

Collins’ stance comes amid a broader political backdrop. In her re‑election campaign, she has repeatedly said she acts independently of President Trump when necessary. She has voted for several of Trump’s nominees, including Hal Duncan, the deputy director of the White House budget office, and Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget. Both officials have advocated for expanded presidential control over spending. Collins voted to confirm Duncan and Vought as part of a larger package of nominees.

The rescinded $810 million had a sizable portion earmarked for nonprofit and non‑governmental organizations working on health and human services. The remainder would have funded grants and fellowships for foreign university students and faculty, housing support groups, and programs focused on migrants, minority empowerment and climate change. Trump’s administration stated that the funds were used for “pro‑illegal immigration programs,” “stoked racial tensions” and “propagated America Last climate alarmism,” among other issues.

Collins’ objections are focused on the mechanism of the rescission, not the nature of the grantees. “There may be some funding here that is not needed,” she said. “But the Office of Management and Budget should have come to us and asked for the money to be transferred to a higher, better use, or asked us to approve in the proper way a rescission of the funds, and it didn’t do so.”

The Senate Appropriations Committee is exploring mechanisms to restore the funding and allow Congress to act on it. Republicans in Congress have acknowledged that Trump’s repeated refusal to spend appropriated money may make future budget negotiations more difficult.

As the fiscal year’s end approaches, the legal and political showdown over the rescission is unlikely to be resolved until Congress and the White House find a mutually acceptable solution—or until the GAO’s potential lawsuit proceeds. The outcome could set a precedent for presidential authority over congressional appropriations, a question that will continue to resonate in the coming months.