Trump Halts $810M to Stop Programmes Flagged as 'Woke International Education' and 'Therapy for Latinx'

President Donald Trump's administration has moved to rescind $810 million (£611.3 million) in spending approved by Congress, using a rare and legally disputed budget manoeuvre known as a 'pocket rescission' just five days before the federal financial year ends on 30 September.

The White House announced the move on Friday, 25 September, saying the money was no longer needed because illegal border crossings had fallen under Trump's policies. The package targets programmes covering refugee services, migrant education, housing counselling, health research and minority-business development.

The largest reduction, $567 million (£427.91 million), affects Department of Health and Human Services funding for programmes serving refugees, asylees and other non-citizens. The administration also identified $70 million (£52.83 million) in education grants and fellowships as 'Woke International Education' and cited an LGBT youth summit and 'Therapy for Latinx' workshops among activities previously funded through migrant-student education programmes.

Which Programmes Are Being Cut?

The White House says the package includes $567 million in HHS funding, $70 million for international education, $56 million (£42.26 million) in Housing and Urban Development housing counselling, $28 million (£21.13 million) in HHS research grants and $25 million (£18.87 million) for the Education Department's Special Programs for Migrant Students.

The package also includes $15 million (£11.32 million) from the Justice Department's Community Relations Service, $15 million from DHS programmes providing legal and social services to migrants, $10 million (£7.55 million) from the Minority Business Development Agency, $9 million (£6.79 million) from a Treasury conservation programme, $5 million (£3.77 million) from an HHS minority-health programme and another $10 million from DHS programmes that the administration says supported the entry of migrants.

Why the Pocket Rescission Is Disputed

A pocket rescission occurs when a president submits a request to cancel appropriated funds so close to the end of the financial year that the money may expire before Congress can complete its review.

Under the Impoundment Control Act, a president can propose a rescission, while Congress generally has 45 days of continuous session to approve it. The Government Accountability Office says the law does not permit the president to withhold funds proposed for rescission through their expiration date. If Congress does not affirmatively rescind the funds, they must be made available for prudent obligation before they expire.

The White House and Office of Management and Budget dispute that interpretation. OMB Director Russell Vought has defended the administration's use of the mechanism.

Congress Pushes Back

Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said Congress received the $810 million package without warning or consultation.

'The independent Government Accountability Office has concluded that pocket rescissions are unlawful and not permitted by the Impoundment Control Act,' Collins wrote. 'Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law.'

Representative Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, also criticised the move, saying the administration was attempting to take back money Congress had approved.

The timing gives lawmakers little practical opportunity to respond. The House is out of session until November, while the Senate plans to adjourn in early October ahead of the 3 November midterm elections.

The 2025 Foreign-Aid Test

Trump used the same mechanism in 2025 to seek the cancellation of about $4.9 billion (£3.7 billion) in foreign aid, the first pocket rescission in nearly five decades.

The Supreme Court allowed the administration to proceed while litigation continued, but did not issue a final ruling establishing that pocket rescissions are lawful. The court's action also relied in part on the president's broad authority over foreign affairs, making it an uncertain precedent for the domestic programmes targeted this year.

That distinction matters because the current package is focused largely on domestic spending, including refugee services, migrant education, housing counselling and health research.

The immediate question is whether the funds will expire before Congress can respond. The larger issue is whether a president may effectively prevent Congress-approved money from being spent by waiting until the clock runs out.