The Trump administration’s move to withdraw nearly USD $70 million from international education and foreign language programs has drawn opposition from university associations and lawmakers, as a broader legal challenge contests its authority to withhold the funding.
The money forms part of an $810 million package submitted to Congress on September 25, five days before the US fiscal year ended. The administration used a disputed mechanism known as a “pocket rescission” to withhold funding as its expiry date approached.
Since the announcement, six higher education associations have called for congressional intervention, while California and six other states have filed a lawsuit challenging the withholding of federal funds, including the latest package.
The formal White House request identifies $69.6 million for withdrawal from the Department of Education’s International Education and Foreign Language domestic programs. A separate provision targets $24.9 million from competitive grants for migrant students.
In its accompanying fact sheet, the White House labelled the international education funding “woke” and described the programs as supporting institutions bringing overseas students and faculty to the US for language teaching, research and professional development.
“These 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,” it said.
This pocket rescission will result in significant harm to programs of national importance and goes directly against the congressional intent expressed in appropriations
Ted Mitchell, American Council on Education
American Council on Education president Ted Mitchell challenged that characterisation in a September 30 letter to congressional leaders, written on behalf of six higher education associations.
“Contrary to the administration’s justification for the rescission request, these programs serve a critical role in ensuring that America has sufficient expertise in areas vital to our national security and ability to compete globally,” Mitchell wrote.
The organisations backing the letter included the Association of American Universities and the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. They urged Congress to reverse the rescission and prevent similar funding actions in future.
Mitchell said efforts to terminate or redirect appropriated funding had caused confusion for students, researchers and institutions, including applicants who had already competed for support.
The letter noted that the move followed changes to program names, an interagency agreement with the State Department and grant competitions held in June.
“This pocket rescission will result in significant harm to programs of national importance and goes directly against the congressional intent expressed in appropriations,” Mitchell wrote.
At the centre of the confrontation is whether a president can use the timing of a cancellation request to prevent congressionally approved money from being committed.
The Impoundment Control Act provides a 45-day period of continuous congressional session for lawmakers to consider a rescission request, during which funding may temporarily be withheld. A pocket rescission seeks to keep the money unavailable until it expires, effectively achieving a cancellation without congressional approval.
The White House argues that the law gives Trump authority to take this approach, describing it as a tool to eliminate spending that does not benefit American citizens.
However, the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s independent watchdog, concluded on September 29 that the administration could not withhold the funds through their expiry. It stressed that its opinion concerned compliance with spending law, rather than the merits of the programs targeted.
Republican senator Susan Collins, who chairs the Senate Appropriations Committee, accused the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of undermining Congress’s constitutional control over spending.
“OMB is an agency of the executive branch. It does not get to decide which programs are worth funding,” she said.
In their September 30 lawsuit, California and six other states — Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico and Oregon — argue that withholding the funding violates the Constitution and the Administrative Procedure Act.
The PIE has contacted the White House, the OMB and the Department of Education for comment and is awaiting responses.
“Any effort to rescind appropriated funds without congressional approval is a clear violation of the law,” said Collins. “I will work with my colleagues to address these illegal actions.”
