President Donald Trump released a budget proposal on Friday that seeks $1.5 trillion for defense spending while requesting $73 billion in cuts to domestic programs. The plan also recommends using the budget reconciliation process—a legislative method that allows for passage with a simple majority—to approve $350 billion in defense funding related to conflict in Iran. The administration’s approach has drawn attention from lawmakers and analysts because of previous executive efforts to withhold or redirect funds already approved by Congress.
The budget request follows a year marked by funding disputes, government shutdowns, and legal challenges regarding the "power of the purse," the constitutional authority held by Congress to control federal spending. A central point of contention involves "pocket rescissions," a tactic where the administration withholds approved funds late in the fiscal year until they expire. Last year, the administration used this method to cancel nearly $5 billion in foreign aid. While the Supreme Court issued a preliminary decision last fall allowing those specific cancellations to proceed, the court has not yet ruled on the broader legality of the practice.
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought stated that the administration is utilizing "every tool in the executive fiscal toolbox" to achieve savings, describing the strategy as a "paradigm shift" in the budget process. However, some congressional leaders are asserting their traditional role. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) stated Friday that while the administration proposes a budget, Congress maintains the power of the purse. The government is currently experiencing a partial closure, with five months having passed since the last major shutdown and a deal to fund the Department of Homeland Security remaining unresolved.
The scale of the "pocket rescissions" strategy involves billions of taxpayer dollars. The $5 billion in foreign aid canceled last year represents approximately $15 per American citizen that was budgeted but never spent as intended by Congress. Analysts like G. William Hoagland of the Bipartisan Policy Center note that if Congress rejects the proposed domestic cuts, the administration may attempt to use rescissions to eliminate the funding anyway. This creates uncertainty for state governments and local agencies that depend on federal grants, as they cannot be sure if the funds promised in legislation will actually be delivered by the executive branch.
This shift in budget mechanics could set a precedent that diminishes the long-term influence of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. By proposing to use the reconciliation process for $350 billion in defense spending, the administration is attempting to bypass the 60-vote filibuster threshold in the Senate, which has traditionally required bipartisan cooperation for funding bills. The next steps include Appropriations Committee markups in the House and Senate later this year. The Supreme Court's future ruling on the legality of withholding funds will determine if the executive branch can permanently use "pocket rescissions" to override congressional spending mandates.