By Olivia Wilson The U.S. Government Accountability Office has issued a significant legal opinion rejecting President Donald Trump’s attempt to use late-year rescission requests to let congressionally approved funds expire before lawmakers can act. The September 29, 2026 opinion focuses on a September 25 presidential special message proposing cuts from 11 federal appropriation accounts. The dispute goes directly to a core separation-of-powers question: who controls federal spending?
What Did Trump Try to Rescind?
Trump sent Congress a special message under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 seeking rescissions from 11 appropriation accounts. The administration also directed that the targeted money be withheld from obligation while Congress considered the request. News reports put the disputed amount at roughly $810 million.
The programs involve areas such as immigration services, education, civil rights, climate initiatives, minority-business support and housing counseling. The White House has defended the cuts as eliminating spending it considers inconsistent with administration priorities.
The timing created the legal problem. The message was sent only days before the September 30 end of fiscal year 2026, when the relevant budget authority was scheduled to expire.
What Does the Impoundment Control Act Require?
Congress enacted the Impoundment Control Act, or ICA, in 1974 after disputes over presidents refusing to spend appropriated money.
Under Section 1012 of the law, a president may ask Congress to permanently cancel, or rescind, enacted budget authority. After a proper rescission message is sent, the executive branch may temporarily withhold the proposed amount.
But Congress must actually enact a rescission bill for the cancellation to become permanent. If Congress does not approve it, the money must be made available for obligation.
Why Did GAO Say the Plan Was Illegal?
GAO concluded in decision B-338788 that the ICA does not allow the president to hold funds until they expire merely because a rescission request has been submitted.
According to GAO, all 11 accounts at issue were set to expire at the end of fiscal year 2026. Yet the congressional review period would extend until at least November 9, 2026. Keeping the money frozen until September 30 would prevent Congress from rejecting the rescission and having the funds used as enacted.
That practice is commonly called a “pocket rescission.” GAO has repeatedly taken the position that pocket rescissions are unlawful.
GAO’s reasoning is constitutional as well as statutory. Article I gives Congress the power of the purse, and the ICA does not transfer Congress’s authority to cancel appropriations to the president.
In unusually strong language, GAO said withholding appropriated funds through their expiration would undermine both the constitutional lawmaking process and Congress’s spending power.
Is the GAO Opinion the Same as a Court Ruling?
No. GAO is an independent agency in the legislative branch, and its appropriations-law opinions carry substantial weight in federal budget disputes, but the September 29 opinion is not the same as a binding judgment from a federal court.
The Trump administration and challengers can still litigate the ICA and presidential impoundment. Courts, not GAO, ultimately issue binding judgments.
Legal challenges are already developing. On October 1, California and six other states sued the Trump administration over the withholding of federal funds, including approximately $810 million tied to the rescission effort. The states argue that the administration is bypassing Congress and violating constitutional spending rules.
A federal judge has also temporarily blocked the rescission of nearly $56 million in housing-counseling grants while a separate challenge proceeds.
Why the Opinion Matters
The fight is about much more than $810 million. If a president can send a rescission request just before funds expire and keep them frozen, the executive branch could effectively cancel spending without congressional approval.
GAO’s September 29 opinion rejects that interpretation. Its position is straightforward: a president may propose rescissions, but cannot use timing to achieve unilaterally what the Constitution and the ICA require Congress to approve.
As of October 4, 2026, the dispute remains active in federal court, and no final Supreme Court ruling has resolved the broader legality of these 2026 rescissions. The next major legal question is whether federal judges adopt GAO’s reading of the Impoundment Control Act and the constitutional power of the purse.
This article provides general legal information and is not legal advice.