California and six other states are challenging the Trump administration’s effort to cancel $810 million in congressionally approved funding for immigration services, race-based programs, gender-related research and other initiatives, arguing the president cannot allow appropriations to expire without congressional approval.
By yourNEWS Media Newsroom
California and six other states sued the Trump administration Wednesday over its attempt to cancel $810 million in congressionally approved federal spending shortly before the end of the fiscal year, opening another legal battle over the president’s authority to withhold money appropriated by Congress.
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was brought by California, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon. The states contend President Donald Trump’s use of a so-called “pocket rescission” violates constitutional separation-of-powers protections and the Impoundment Control Act because the timing prevents Congress from meaningfully considering the proposed cancellations before the funds expire.
The White House announced the rescissions Sept. 25, five days before the fiscal year ended, targeting programs the administration says do not serve the national interest. According to the White House announcement, the administration sought to eliminate nearly $1 billion in spending overall, with $810 million identified in the states’ lawsuit as funds being unilaterally withheld.
“President Trump is committed to utilizing all possible tools to cut wasteful and harmful government spending that does not benefit American citizens,” the White House said.
Administration Targets Immigration, DEI and Other Programs
The largest category identified by the administration is $567 million in Department of Health and Human Services funding for services provided to refugees, people granted asylum and other noncitizens. The White House characterized those grants as supporting “pro-illegal immigration programs” and nongovernmental organizations it says were no longer necessary because border crossings have fallen sharply.
Among the recipients cited was Lutheran Immigration and Refugee Service, now operating as Global Refuge, which received $2.1 million. The White House described the organization as “an open-borders NGO” led by Krish O’Mara Vignarajah, a former policy director for Michelle Obama, and said its budget had more than quadrupled during the Biden administration, with much of its revenue coming from government grants.
The administration also pointed to $40 million previously awarded to Southwest Key Programs. The Justice Department filed a civil lawsuit against Southwest Key alleging that employees sexually harassed and abused unaccompanied migrant children in its care. Those allegations were made in civil litigation and do not themselves constitute a criminal conviction.
Another $15 million targeted by the administration came from a Homeland Security program providing legal services, mental health treatment, housing assistance, childcare and other support to certain noncitizens. An additional $10 million was slated for elimination from immigration-related grant programs, while $25 million was targeted from Education Department programs serving migrant students.
The rescission package goes beyond immigration. The administration proposed eliminating $15 million for the Justice Department’s Community Relations Service, which was created to help communities address racial and ethnic tensions. The White House said the office had instead promoted “radical critical race theory and gender ideology,” citing training involving transgender issues and other race-focused initiatives.
Another $70 million would be removed from international education programs that the administration labeled “Woke International Education.” The White House said some grants had supported projects including research into queer and transgender community building abroad.
Other proposed reductions include $28 million from HHS research programs involving climate, race and gender issues; $10 million from the Minority Business Development Agency; $56 million from housing-counseling grants; and $5 million from the HHS Office of Minority Health.
Those descriptions reflect the Trump administration’s characterization of the programs and their value. The states and affected organizations dispute the administration’s broader contention that Congress-approved programs can be discontinued based on executive policy disagreements.
States Challenge Presidential Spending Power
California Attorney General Rob Bonta, who is leading the coalition, argues that Congress — not the president — has constitutional authority over federal appropriations. The states contend that once Congress appropriates funds and directs agencies to spend them for specified purposes, the executive branch cannot permanently cancel that spending without legislative approval.
“I continue to be appalled by President Trump’s blatant disregard for the basic Constitutional framework of our government. Just because the president doesn’t like a program doesn’t mean he can defund it,” Bonta said.
The coalition argues that the withholding violates the Constitution’s Appropriations, Presentment and Separation of Powers clauses, as well as the Administrative Procedure Act. California’s attorney general said additional congressionally appropriated money for emergency services, education and other programs also remained unobligated as the fiscal year ended and risked expiring.
The dispute centers on the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Under the law, a president may send Congress a request to rescind previously appropriated money and temporarily withhold that funding while lawmakers consider the proposal. Congress normally has 45 days of continuous session to approve a rescission; if it does not, the funds must be made available for obligation.
A “pocket rescission” attempts to use the same procedure so near the expiration of an appropriation that the money expires before the 45-day period can run, effectively producing a cancellation even without congressional approval.
Trump used the same approach in August 2025 to withhold approximately $4.9 billion in foreign aid and international organization funding. The administration described that move as the first use of the tactic in nearly 50 years and says the Impoundment Control Act provides the necessary presidential authority.
The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office takes the opposite position. In its guidance on pocket rescissions, GAO says the practice is unlawful because the statute does not permit a president to shorten the period during which Congress made appropriations available.
Presidents dating back to the 1970s have proposed rescissions near fiscal-year deadlines, including during the Carter administration, but the legal interpretation of whether funds may be withheld through expiration has evolved. The current dispute could ultimately provide courts with an opportunity to clarify how far presidential rescission authority extends.
Trump’s White House maintains the administration is acting to protect taxpayers and eliminate programs it considers wasteful, ideologically driven or no longer necessary.
“This year, he is continuing his commitment to the American taxpayer by utilizing a pocket rescission for another nearly $1 billion of the most harmful government spending,” the White House said.
Bonta and the six other attorneys general contend the policy question is secondary to Congress’s constitutional authority. Their argument is that a president who disagrees with appropriated spending must persuade lawmakers to cancel it rather than allow the money to expire unilaterally.
The seven states are asking the federal court to stop the administration from withholding the funds and preserve their ability to recover money Congress had already authorized. The case adds to a series of lawsuits testing the boundary between Trump’s efforts to cut federal programs and Congress’s constitutional power over government spending.
Original article
Comments