By Lindsey McPherson (The Washington Times)
The White House late Friday cut nearly $810 million in congressionally appropriated funding for programs that provide aid to unauthorized immigrants and serve race-based missions.
The bulk of the cuts, a legally questionable move known as a “pocket rescission,” would slash $567 million from Health and Human Services programs for noncitizens.
“These funds previously went to pro-illegal immigration programs and Non-Governmental Organizations that provided services to refugees, asylees, and other non-citizens and put unaccompanied children in harm’s way,” the White House said, arguing the money is no longer needed “thanks to President Trump’s successful border policies [ending] the illegal alien invasion.”
Other cuts targeting aid for unauthorized immigrants include $25 million from the Department of Education’s Special Programs for Migrant Students, which the White House said has funded activities such as an LGBTQ youth summit for migrant students and therapy for Latinx workshops; $15 million from a Department of Homeland Security grant program funding legal services, mental health resources and cultural orientation for asylees and other noncitizens; and $10 million from DHS programs that the White House said “laundered taxpayer dollars to radical open borders NGOs who provided legal services to illegal aliens, with the goal of helping them overcome criminal status and game the immigration system.”
The White House also cut funding from race-based programs, including $70 million from what it called “woke international education” programs that support grants and fellowships for foreign students and faculty to study or teach in the U.S.
The administration said the programs “have deviated from their core mission and instead support wasteful and divisive projects, including doctoral dissertations on queer and trans community building in foreign countries.”
An additional $56 million was cut from Housing and Urban Development programs that provide grants for housing counseling. “The program has not shown reduced delinquencies for counseled homebuyers and instead focuses on grantees with DEI-centric discriminatory agendas,” the White House said.
The president has the authority to request rescissions to the budgets Congress enacts. Under the Impoundment Control Act, if Congress does not approve the request within 45 days, the administration is obligated to spend the funding.
The White House is submitting this $810 million rescissions request just days before the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year, which means the 45-day deadline will never materialize.
Using a loophole known as “pocket rescission,” the White House argues it does not have to spend the money even if Congress does not approve the request. Many lawmakers say the tactic is illegal.
Near the end of last fiscal year, the Trump administration issued a $5 billion pocket rescission cutting foreign aid programs.
Affected organizations sued and the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia ordered that the funds must be spent. The Supreme Court stayed the order, arguing the impoundment law did not give the plaintiffs standing to sue. The spending cuts went forward.
The Supreme Court order did not address the legality of pocket rescissions, so that question remains outstanding.
“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, bragging about its “historic” use of the “long-neglected” pocket rescission to cut “the most harmful government spending.”
Senate Appropriations Chair Susan M. Collins, Maine Republican, called the pocket rescission the administration’s latest attempt “to undermine Congress’s constitutional power of the purse.”
She said the Office of Management and Budget submitted the rescission package “without warning or consultation” from Congress.
“The independent Government Accountability Office has concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act,” Ms. Collins said. “Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law. I will work with my colleagues to address these illegal actions.”
This article was made available to WMAL via The Washington Times.
