Republicans Block Merkley’s Bill to Eliminate Pocket Rescissions After the Trump Administration Again Illegally Claws Back Funds Without Consent from Congress

Republicans Block Merkley's Bill to Eliminate Pocket Rescissions After the Trump Administration Again Illegally Claws Back Funds Without Consent from Congress

WASHINGTON, D.C. - After the Trump Administration issued another illegal pocket rescission late Friday night, U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee, took to the Senate floor to pass his bill, which would eliminate any future pocket rescissions and would nullify the newest illegal cancelation of Congressionally appropriated funds that the administration is currently putting into effect. Republicans blocked the bill.

In January, Merkley offered an amendment to codify a permanent ban on pocket rescissions by prohibiting the President from sending Congress a "special message" under the Impoundment Control Act within 90 days of the expiration of the funds proposed for rescission. Republicans blocked it. In November 2025, Merkley filed this amendment to the continuing resolution legislation that ended the shutdown. Merkley made a motion to call up this amendment; that vote failed on a party-line vote, and the Republicans blocked consideration of the amendment. Republicans have also blocked Merkley's amendment three separate times when considering funding bills in the Senate Appropriations Committee.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) reaffirmed that the Impoundment Control Act does now allow for the President to issue a pocket rescission on expiring funding.

Merkley's remarks, as prepared for delivery, are below.

M. President:

Laws are not suggestions, the Constitutional is not optional, and the President is not a king. That was the Founders' vision for our democratic republic.

But, on Friday, President Trump swung a wrecking ball at the Founder's vision. He and Russ Vought, Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget and the architect of Project 2025, notified Congress in the dark of night that they seek to cancel nearly $1 billion in programs authorized and funded by Congress.

Let's be clear: cancelling the resources for these programs is illegal and unconstitutional.

Illegal because this funding is the law - passed by Congress and signed into law by the President, himself. And unconstitutional because the Constitution's separation of powers gives the 'power of the purse' to Congress, not the President.

We know that for sure because in 1996, Congress tried to give the President the power to cancel specific programs in large spending bills. They called it the "line-item veto".

But, in 1998, the Supreme Court struck down the line-item veto as unconstitutional because it violated the Constitution's separation of powers.

And, yesterday, the independent, non-partisan Government Accountability Office reaffirmed that Trump's pocket recissions are illegal, writing, quote:

"GAO has previously concluded that the [Impoundment Control Act] does not permit the withholding of funds past their date of expiration. The plain language of the ICA provides that amounts proposed for rescission must be made available for obligation unless Congress completes action on a bill rescinding them. The legislative history of the ICA, Supreme Court precedent, and the overarching constitutional framework also compel this conclusion. Therefore, 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."

In other words, it is Congress' job to design, authorize, and fund these programs, and it is the Executive's job - that is, the President's job - to implement these programs.

This assignment of responsibilities is designed to ensure that the government serves the people.

In a democratic republic, the people's representatives in Congress - from all regions of the country, from all walks of life debate and negotiate and legislate program and spending decisions so that the federal government serves the needs of the entire nation.

We don't just deliver programs for red states when Republicans are in the majority or just deliver programs for blue states when Democrats are in the majority, we deliver programs for all of the United States no matter who is in the majority.

But, in an authoritarian strongman state, the President alone decides which programs to fund, often to reward his allies and punish his opponents.

In these strongman states, there is no separation of powers. Instead, there is only one authority. Call him a king. Call him a czar. Call him an emperor or a dictator or a tyrant.

No matter what you call him, that is not government by and for the people.

Last year, Trump seized these powers of a king when he illegally canceled nearly $5 billion in programs authorized and funded by Congress.

He has done this using a tool called a "rescission."

Under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, the President can request that Congress rescind-or cancel-funding for a project or program and the funding for that project or program can be frozen for 45 days while Congress considers the request.

Either way, it's Congress' decision and the law says that no rescission goes into effect without Congress.

But that is not what is happening here.

What's happening here is the deliberate misuse of that process called a, quote, "pocket rescission".

A pocket rescission is when the President initiates a 45-day freeze on funding that expires in fewer than 45 days.

In this case, on September 25, Trump initiated a 45-day freeze on funds that expire on September 30!

Their plan is simple: since they cannot cancel funds, they are trying to run out the clock until those funds expire at midnight tonight and disappear like Cinderella's carriage.

Last summer, I wrote an amendment to ban the President from unilaterally freezing funds or implementing illegal pocket rescissions.

I tried to get my amendment included in committee not once, not twice, but three separate times.

And every-single-time every Republican on the Senate Appropriations Committee blocked it.

So, I tried again on the Senate Floor.

And, again, Republicans blocked my amendment.

I even tried again in January of this year when another appropriations bill

was on the floor. And, again, Republicans blocked my amendment.

My Republican colleagues should ask themselves: If a Democratic president cancelled programs important to their constituents in a bipartisan bill, a bill they had negotiated in good faith, a bill the President had signed into law, how would they react?

Because this is about much more than the nearly $1 billion for a few important federal programs.

I sit on the Appropriations Committee. I have negotiated many spending bills with my Republican colleagues.

In those negotiations, do we each get everything we want?

Of course not.

But that is what it means to negotiate a bipartisan compromise for the good of the entire country.

That is how the appropriations process has always worked - and how the appropriations process should work.

But that bipartisan process won't work if pocket rescissions destroy the possibility of compromise.

Because how will Congress ever be able to negotiate bipartisan deals in the future if both sides know that the President will just undo the deal later?

So, today, I'm bringing to the Floor a bill to end pocket rescissions once and for all by banning the President from freezing funds fewer than 90 days before they expire.

Unfortunately, this bill is needed because Trump and Vought froze funds just five days before the end of this Fiscal Year which doesn't give Congress enough time to investigate the request, or debate the decision, let alone pass new legislation.

And even if the Senate could, the House of Representatives is gone and won't be back until November.

This is an insult to Congress and the Constitution.

On Friday, in response to Trump's latest pocket rescission, our Republican colleagues said that this is an:

"unlawful cancellation of appropriations that were approved on a bipartisan basis and signed into law"… That Trump and Vought are trying to, quote: "undermine Congress's Constitutional power of the purse"... And that they will, quote, "address these illegal actions".

Well, we can address those illegal actions right now by passing my bill.

It's long past time for our Republican colleagues to be not just 'concerned,' but to speak up and tell the President that we will not stand for this utter disregard for the Constitution and Congress.

So, on a bipartisan basis, let's all 100 Senators fulfill our oath to the Constitution and ban pocket rescissions because laws are not suggestions, the Constitution is not optional, and the President is not a king!

###