On September 25, 2026, President Donald Trump’s administration submitted a proposal to rescind $810 million in federal funding that Congress had previously approved. The proposal targeted 11 federal accounts, including funding related to education, refugee assistance, minority business development, housing, and international programs. The administration also attempted to withhold the funds while Congress considered the proposal, using a rarely used strategy known as a “pocket rescission.” Trump’s actions are controversial in not just the lens of government spending, but also in the lens of democratic erosion’s relationship with populist ideology. What happens when a leader, who holds the belief that they are making the “obvious” decision, uses their power to do executive aggrandizement and take charge of domains they do not hold all the power in? Ultimately, this blog post will argue that Trump’s attempt to withhold congressionally approved funding demonstrates how a populist conception of the popular will can facilitate democratic erosion when a president treats his electoral mandate as authority to overcome institutional constraints rather than as constrained by democratic institutions.
In order to understand how populism is seen in President Trump’s pocket rescission, it is important to understand what the ideology denotes. Political philosopher Jan-Werner Müller’s definition of populism is a combination of anti-elitism and anti-pluralism. Populists present politics as a struggle between a “morally pure” people and a “corrupt” elite. It creates an “us versus them” rhetoric in the political sphere, outcasting certain groups of people who are deemed to take away the voice of the morally good. Müller also argues that populists claim to be the exclusive representatives of the people, meaning that political opponents can be portrayed as illegitimate rather than simply as people with different political interests (anti-pluralism). President Trump has been, since 2016, an almost key archetype of a populist leader. In several ways, Trump has created an “othering” in the US political sphere – whether that be through his attacks on minority rights such as immigrant rights, or in general minorities, these are all the actions of a populist leader created by an “us versus them” rhetoric. And ultimately, this strategy has worked: the share of Republicans who see immigration as an imminent threat has risen sharply after Trump, in his first and second terms, pushed anti-immigrant efforts.

It is also necessary to understand what check President Trump is attempting to dismantle. Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, a president can propose that Congress rescind funding, but Congress must actually complete the rescission process. The Government Accountability Office (GAO), in a September 29 decision responding to Trump’s proposal, concluded that the administration could not withhold the funds beyond the end of fiscal year 2026 simply because the president had proposed rescinding them. According to the GAO, allowing the funds to expire in this way would undermine Congress’s constitutional power over federal spending.
This does not mean that every disagreement between a president and Congress represents an example of democratic erosion. Trump has a legitimate electoral mandate to pursue the policies he campaigned on, and presidents routinely attempt to change government spending and policy. The administration has also provided its own justification for the rescissions, arguing that the targeted programs represent wasteful or inappropriate spending. The issue is therefore larger than whether or not Trump agrees with Congress. Instead, the important democratic question is whether the executive branch can use its authority to circumvent an institution that has its own constitutional role; ultimately, it cannot without eroding democracy.
In this case, Trump is following Müller’s populist definition almost exactly; he is utilizing his power as an executive to dismantle funds that may be beneficial to those he has deemed as the “corrupt” people in his country. Using a pocket rescission that has largely been deemed illegal, President Trump sets a precedent for the US democracy; the executive should hold overriding power when it comes to this situation. Such actions, which fall under the term of ‘executive aggrandizement’, greatly contribute to democratic erosion because they actually (ironically) limit the will of the people rather than strengthen them. The irony is that a leader can invoke “the people” to justify expanding executive power while simultaneously weakening the pluralistic institutions through which those people are represented. Such actions undermine democracy, which is based on the will of the people, not the will of one singular leader.
To further this point, the people are fighting against Trump’s funding rescission, signaling a dissonance between the people’s will, the courts, and the Trump administration. On top of the GAO identifying that this undermines Congress’s power of the purse, lawmakers are looking for courts to help protect Congress’ funding power. A barrage of lawsuits have already targeted Trump’s rescission, a clear sign of the anti-democratic nature of the case.
Trump’s pocket rescission shows the tension between populism and democratic institutions. While presidents have the right to pursue the policies they were elected to support, that power is still limited by Congress and the Constitution. When a president uses the idea of the “popular will” to bypass these limits, executive power can expand at the expense of institutional checks and balances. This case demonstrates how populist leadership can create challenges for democracy when the will of one leader is treated as more important than the institutions designed to represent the people.