The White House Office of Management and Budget on Friday returned $810 million in taxpayer funds that had been appropriated by Congress for programs serving unauthorized immigrants, using a rarely invoked budget maneuver known as a pocket rescission. The move, announced days before the funds were set to expire on Sept. 30, drew sharp reactions from lawmakers and advocacy groups.

The decision highlights a growing conflict between the executive branch and Congress over control of federal spending, particularly on immigration and social programs.

The Trump administration said the rescinded funds had been earmarked for what it called "pro-illegal immigration programs" and nongovernmental organizations that provide services to refugees, asylees, and other noncitizens. According to the White House, the money was no longer needed due to what it described as "successful border policies."

The returned funds will now be considered expired budget authority, making them unavailable for their previously authorized uses. Programs affected include grants for affordable housing for unauthorized immigrants, LGBTQ+ services for noncitizens, business benefits for minorities, and funding for open-border NGOs.

The administration's action follows a similar move last August, when President Trump returned $5 billion in foreign aid—the first such action in five decades. Office of Management and Budget Director Russel Vought recently told the Daily Signal that further rescissions were under consideration, stating, "All options are on the table."

Conservative Lawmakers Applaud Move

Members of the House Freedom Caucus and other conservative lawmakers praised the administration for targeting what they described as wasteful spending. Rep. Josh Brecheen said, "With a $40 trillion national debt, we cannot afford to waste almost a billion dollars on illegal aliens and DEI programs. Congress must stop spending money on projects that do not specifically relate to the 18 enumerated powers found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution!"

Rep. Eric Burlison, R-Mo., credited President Trump and OMB Director Russ Vought for "going after the pipeline that sends taxpayer dollars from Washington to NGOs and programs that put noncitizens and left-wing priorities ahead of Americans."

"This is America First in action. The Trump Administration is cutting wasteful spending that does not benefit American citizens. Hardworking taxpayers should not be forced to bankroll health and social services for people who broke our laws."

— Rep. Lauren Boebert, R-Colo.

Pushback from Appropriators and Democrats

The move drew immediate criticism from Senate Appropriations Chairwoman Susan Collins, who called the pocket rescission an attempt to undermine Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. "Without warning or consultation, Congress just received an $810 million package of pocket rescissions from the Administration. This is the most recent attempt by this Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to undermine Congress’s constitutional power of the purse," Collins wrote on social media.

Collins cited the Government Accountability Office, which she said ruled the action illegal. Democrat Sen. Jeff Merkley of Oregon, a member of the Appropriations Committee, called the move an "illegal line-item veto" and accused the president of "canceling the lines of spending he doesn’t like."

General Counsel for the Office of Management and Budget Mark Paoletta defended the administration’s use of the Impoundment Control Act, noting that the GAO had agreed with the legality of pocket rescissions for decades before reversing its position in 2018. "This Administration will continue to use its lawful authorities to get wins for the American people," Paoletta said.

The dispute over the legality of the pocket rescission could escalate further. The source notes that last year, the Supreme Court sided with the White House in a similar case, ruling that the president was allowed to withhold funds within a comparable timeline. It remains unclear whether opponents will pursue new legal action in response to the latest rescission.

The administration’s use of pocket rescissions and its broader approach to federal spending have become central issues in the ongoing debate over immigration policy and executive authority. The White House maintains that its actions are within the law, while critics argue they undermine congressional control over federal funds.