A Top Republican Wanted to Reclaim Congress’ Spending Authority. The White House Stopped Him.

Democrats have long expressed concern about the Trump administration’s efforts to withhold congressionally appropriated funding, arguing that the White House is attempting to circumvent Congress’ power of the purse.

But so far, their demands to add guardrails to funding bills to stop the administration from engaging in so-called “pocket rescissions” have gone unanswered.

One senior House Republican, though, did try to add such a provision to an appropriations bill — only for the White House to intervene and stop him, NOTUS has learned.

The Office of Management and Budget’s director, Russell Vought, is the mastermind behind the administration’s pocket rescissions strategy which involves a request from the president to withhold money already appropriated by Congress. But the request comes so late in the fiscal year that Congress doesn’t have enough time to act within the allotted timeframe. and the administration considers the money rescinded once the fiscal year ends.

The Trump White House had so far used pocket rescissions once, when it withheld nearly $5 billion in congressionally approved foreign aid in August. The Supreme Court allowed the move, effectively greenlighting Vought’s strategy for the near future.

But in July, Rep. Mario Díaz-Balart, vice chair of the House Appropriations Committee and one of the 12 so-called “cardinals,” quietly added a provision to the fiscal 2026 bill for the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs Subcommittee — which funds the agencies most impacted by Trump’s two rescissions requests — that would have addressed pocket rescissions.

The clause, Sec. 7065, would have given Congress an extra 45 days to consider rescissions requests submitted late in the fiscal year.

After the bill text was released, Vought reached out to Díaz-Balart, explaining that the White House was concerned about the provision, one senior White House official told NOTUS. The official said that after Vought relayed the issue, Díaz-Balart removed the provision.

The White House did more than just reach out to Díaz-Balart. Republican appropriators started receiving pressure from the White House to not support the bill if the provision remained, according to a source familiar with the matter.

A second source familiar with the matter told NOTUS that some GOP appropriators contacted the White House shortly after the bill came out to let officials know that they were “working to get it out.”

Members quickly spoke to Díaz-Balart about the provision, urging him to remove it. Rep. Andy Harris, a top appropriator and chair of the House Freedom Caucus, which has continuously supported the White House’s rescissions efforts, confirmed to NOTUS that he spoke with the Florida congressman, saying “there was discussion about (the provision) and it never came to fruition.”

Rep. Andrew Clyde, another appropriator and Freedom Caucus member, told NOTUS that Díaz-Balart’s move “would have eviscerated pocket rescissions. It wasn’t supported, so it came out.” He declined to comment on conversations he had with Díaz-Balart on the issue, saying that “member to member conversations are private.”

Rep. Chuck Edwards, vice chair of the National Security, Department of State, and Related Programs appropriations subcommittee, told NOTUS that he spoke with Díaz-Balart and that they “agree that the idea of pocket rescissions has been a new one, one that we’ve never faced before.”

“We should have a broader discussion on handling this situation. Whatever we decide has to be agreed on by the White House, since ultimately the president would have to sign off on anything,” Edwards told NOTUS.

“I had rather Congress have the authority and the power of the purse. One more small provision in exercising that authority, it deserves a broader conversation,” Edwards added.

When asked what drove him to add the provision to the bill, Díaz-Balart told NOTUS, “I’ve always believed that Congress has a tendency to always give too much away to the administration — any president, any administration.” Díaz-Balart said the language was not targeted at the Trump administration specifically and added that he has a “great relationship” with Vought and the White House.

The Government Accountability Office has said pocket rescissions are an attempt by the executive branch to circumvent Congress’ power of the purse and unilaterally withhold congressionally approved funding, and are therefore unlawful. Díaz-Balart did not address their lawfulness but Republican Sens. Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, the latter of whom chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, believe they are illegal.

“My bill is a great bill,” Díaz-Balart said. “I got a lot of input from different members on different issues, on everything you can think of.”

House appropriations bills typically pass in party-line votes, so Díaz-Balart could not afford to lose any Republicans in the narrow majority. The congressman introduced a manager’s amendment changing some of the bill’s text and quietly added a note to remove the pocket rescissions clause. At the bill’s full committee markup in July, when Díaz-Balart brought up the amendment for a vote, he explained various of the provisions that would change in the bill, but did not specifically address the portion eliminating Sec. 7065.

Democrats did.

The section, House Appropriations Ranking Chair Rosa DeLauro said at the hearing, “is a clear check on agency overreach and accountability and is intended to ensure that this committee, that the Congress remains at the center of appropriations decisions.”

“There weren’t a lot of things in this bill that I liked, but I applauded and I appreciated Sec. 7065 — and now it’s gone,” Rep. Betty McCollum echoed at the time.

Speaking directly to Díaz-Balart, she added, “I realize that you have some challenges on your side, … but I cannot ideally stand back and not speak to the fine provision that you put in the bill.”

“You had a great idea, I wish you would have stuck with it,” she continued.

Ultimately, Republican appropriators passed the manager’s amendment, and the pocket rescissions provision was removed from the bill. Díaz-Balart said the manager’s amendment was “not unusual” and that “it’s part of the process where you’re constantly tweaking, moving, changing in committee, and then also on the floor, and then obviously in negotiations.”

DeLauro told NOTUS she still thinks about the provision. The ranking member said that she raised it in meetings with Congress’ top appropriators — Rep. Tom Cole along with Collins and Sen. Patty Murray — as something she wanted to add to a bipartisan continuing resolution before the government shut down in October. Guardrails against pocket rescissions ultimately did not make it into the GOP continuing resolution.

“We were anticipating that we would move in that direction,” DeLauro said. “The consensus among the four corners of appropriations was that we would have a bipartisan continuing resolution that would consider Democratic priorities and would consider looking at these issues — a mechanism to keep them from stealing what we appropriate.”

“I think Congressman Díaz-Balart understood that this cannot happen, and he was looking for a way in which we cannot allow the administration to do what it’s been doing,” she added.