Collins exploring pocket rescissions ban after Trump cancels $810

So a Republican senator from Maine is going to spend her political capital trying to stop the President from canceling waste. That is the story in one sentence. Senator Collins is reportedly exploring a legislative ban on "pocket rescissions" after President Trump clawed back $810 million in congressionally approved funds. This is a curious fight to pick, and it tells us a lot about how the old guard in Washington still thinks about money.

The constitutional reality is that the power of the purse belongs to Congress. We don't dispute that. But the practical reality is that Washington doesn't have a revenue problem; it has a spending problem. When the President finally uses a tool to cancel funds that were approved but not yet spent, he is doing exactly what he promised voters he would do. The outrage from the appropriators isn't really about procedure—it's about control. It’s about who gets to decide where the money goes. Collins seems worried about the precedent, but the electorate is more worried about the debt.

To be fair, there is a legitimate argument that the executive branch shouldn't unilaterally undo what the legislature has passed. If the process is sloppy, it invites a constitutional challenge that could actually weaken the President's hand down the road. But here is the thing: Congress had its chance to be the adults in the room. They authorized the spending, and the administration found the waste. The better enemy of good spending is good procedure, but the procedure is being used here to protect pork, not to protect the Constitution.

We suspect Collins will find that this particular fight doesn't have a lot of energy behind it. Republican voters didn't send Trump back to the White House to let the Senate quietly reassert its prerogatives over pet projects. It’s Congress that keeps writing the checks. The President is the one actually reading them. If the appropriators want to keep their power, they should try using it to cut the fat themselves—before the President has to step in and do it for them. Otherwise, this is just a tantrum over losing the privilege to spend money we don't have.