Federal spending is once again in the spotlight, with the Trump administration reshaping what has long been considered one of Congress’s most fundamental responsibilities: The power of the purse. What should be a straightforward duty of appropriating funds for the nation has instead evolved into a tense contest of authority between the executive and legislative branches, carrying profound implications for the stability of government programmes.
Education stands at the heart of this struggle. From Title I allocations that sustain schools in low-income communities to grants for special education and English learners, billions of dollars meant to support America’s classrooms have become entangled in partisan maneuvering. The administration’s reliance on rescissions, impoundments, and unilateral funding freezes has left districts uncertain about resources they were told to expect, forcing schools to plan their academic year against a backdrop of fiscal unpredictability.
A looming deadline, a rarely met obligation
Congress is currently negotiating the federal budget for fiscal year 2026, covering the period from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026. For legislators, the task is formidable: Balance competing priorities, keep the government open, and fulfill their constitutional mandate to appropriate funds. Yet history offers little reassurance. Rarely has Congress managed to pass a complete budget on time in the 21st century, relying instead on continuing resolutions that simply extend old funding levels and punt decisions down the road.
The new school year has already begun under a cloud of uncertainty. Districts across the country are bracing for disruption, unsure whether the federal commitments made earlier this year will actually materialize.
The heart of the debate: Forward-funding and rescissions
Most federal investments in education are forward-funded, meaning that appropriations in one fiscal year fuel schools in the next. By this logic, the FY2026 budget under debate will directly shape classrooms in 2026–27. But this year’s battle is not confined to the future.
A House budget draft proposes rescinding more than $2 billion already allocated for the current year, including nearly $1 billion earmarked for Title I schools serving low-income students. If approved, schools expecting that money to flow on October 1 would suddenly find themselves shortchanged. For districts already grappling with rising costs and post-pandemic recovery challenges, such a move could destabilize staffing, student services, and long-term planning.
Two visions: Senate’s stability vs. House’s retrenchment
The Senate Appropriations Committee , led by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, advanced its education budget on July 31 with a bipartisan 26–3 vote. Its version maintains level funding for most K–12 programs, modestly increases Title I and IDEA support, and explicitly reins in the Trump administration’s attempts to withhold or redirect congressionally approved funds. In effect, the Senate is seeking to safeguard predictability in schools.
The House, by contrast, has aligned more closely with President Trump’s vision. Its bill trims billions from Title I and special education, eliminates community-school and English-learner grants, and pares back education research. Yet, it stops short of embracing Trump’s proposal for a sweeping block grant to states, signaling that even among House Republicans, there are limits to centralization.
What happens if the clock runs out?
The stakes of the September 30 deadline are stark. Without a budget or a temporary continuing resolution, the federal government would shut down. Education programs dependent on federal dollars could face abrupt funding halts.
While top lawmakers from both parties are discussing short-term stopgaps through November or December, such measures would only prolong uncertainty. Partial shutdowns remain a possibility, too—where agencies funded by approved bills continue functioning while others grind to a halt. For schools, such unpredictability is disruptive not only for budgets but for trust in federal commitments.
The shadow of impoundment and “pocket rescissions”
Looming over appropriations negotiations is the Trump administration’s aggressive use of impoundment—the executive withholding of funds Congress has already approved. Although a 1970s law requires the White House to notify Congress and seek approval before rescinding funds, Trump officials argue the statute itself is unconstitutional.
In August, the administration proposed clawing back $4.9 billion in foreign aid just weeks before it would expire, effectively daring Congress to act. The Government Accountability Office has labeled such “pocket rescissions” illegal, warning that they subvert legislative authority. Lawmakers across the aisle have voiced alarm, but Republican leaders appear content to let the courts decide.
For education, the implications are profound. Already, Trump’s team has frozen formula funding and canceled grants without notice, undermining school districts’ ability to plan around promised federal support.
Courts, watchdogs, and the coming legal battles
Legal challenges to Trump’s impoundment maneuvers are advancing, though none are likely to reach the Supreme Court before next year. The GAO, led by Comptroller General Gene Dodaro , has already ruled that at least five of the administration’s funding changes, including cuts to Head Start, school modernization, and library services, violated federal law.
Dodaro, whose 15-year term ends in December, has hinted that suing the administration may be a last resort. The historical resonance is clear: The last time a comptroller general sued a president over impoundment was in 1975, under Gerald Ford . Trump will now appoint Dodaro’s successor, ensuring another layer of political drama in an already volatile budget season.
A precarious future for education funding
The clash over the FY2026 budget encapsulates a deeper struggle over the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, between legislative order and executive improvisation. For schools, it translates into a precarious waiting game.
If rescissions move forward, Title I schools serving the most vulnerable populations will be forced to cut back mid-year. If impoundment tactics persist, even appropriated funds may never reach classrooms. And if Congress yet again defaults to continuing resolutions, schools will face the paralysis of uncertainty, unable to plan beyond a few months at a time.
At a moment when American education is already strained by inequities, political brinkmanship threatens to compound instability. As lawmakers scramble to avoid a shutdown, the fate of millions of students hangs in the balance—collateral in a high-stakes test of constitutional limits and political will.
Education stands at the heart of this struggle. From Title I allocations that sustain schools in low-income communities to grants for special education and English learners, billions of dollars meant to support America’s classrooms have become entangled in partisan maneuvering. The administration’s reliance on rescissions, impoundments, and unilateral funding freezes has left districts uncertain about resources they were told to expect, forcing schools to plan their academic year against a backdrop of fiscal unpredictability.
A looming deadline, a rarely met obligation
Congress is currently negotiating the federal budget for fiscal year 2026, covering the period from October 1, 2025, through September 30, 2026. For legislators, the task is formidable: Balance competing priorities, keep the government open, and fulfill their constitutional mandate to appropriate funds. Yet history offers little reassurance. Rarely has Congress managed to pass a complete budget on time in the 21st century, relying instead on continuing resolutions that simply extend old funding levels and punt decisions down the road.
The new school year has already begun under a cloud of uncertainty. Districts across the country are bracing for disruption, unsure whether the federal commitments made earlier this year will actually materialize.
The heart of the debate: Forward-funding and rescissions
Most federal investments in education are forward-funded, meaning that appropriations in one fiscal year fuel schools in the next. By this logic, the FY2026 budget under debate will directly shape classrooms in 2026–27. But this year’s battle is not confined to the future.
A House budget draft proposes rescinding more than $2 billion already allocated for the current year, including nearly $1 billion earmarked for Title I schools serving low-income students. If approved, schools expecting that money to flow on October 1 would suddenly find themselves shortchanged. For districts already grappling with rising costs and post-pandemic recovery challenges, such a move could destabilize staffing, student services, and long-term planning.
Two visions: Senate’s stability vs. House’s retrenchment
The Senate Appropriations Committee , led by Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, advanced its education budget on July 31 with a bipartisan 26–3 vote. Its version maintains level funding for most K–12 programs, modestly increases Title I and IDEA support, and explicitly reins in the Trump administration’s attempts to withhold or redirect congressionally approved funds. In effect, the Senate is seeking to safeguard predictability in schools.
The House, by contrast, has aligned more closely with President Trump’s vision. Its bill trims billions from Title I and special education, eliminates community-school and English-learner grants, and pares back education research. Yet, it stops short of embracing Trump’s proposal for a sweeping block grant to states, signaling that even among House Republicans, there are limits to centralization.
What happens if the clock runs out?
The stakes of the September 30 deadline are stark. Without a budget or a temporary continuing resolution, the federal government would shut down. Education programs dependent on federal dollars could face abrupt funding halts.
While top lawmakers from both parties are discussing short-term stopgaps through November or December, such measures would only prolong uncertainty. Partial shutdowns remain a possibility, too—where agencies funded by approved bills continue functioning while others grind to a halt. For schools, such unpredictability is disruptive not only for budgets but for trust in federal commitments.
The shadow of impoundment and “pocket rescissions”
Looming over appropriations negotiations is the Trump administration’s aggressive use of impoundment—the executive withholding of funds Congress has already approved. Although a 1970s law requires the White House to notify Congress and seek approval before rescinding funds, Trump officials argue the statute itself is unconstitutional.
In August, the administration proposed clawing back $4.9 billion in foreign aid just weeks before it would expire, effectively daring Congress to act. The Government Accountability Office has labeled such “pocket rescissions” illegal, warning that they subvert legislative authority. Lawmakers across the aisle have voiced alarm, but Republican leaders appear content to let the courts decide.
For education, the implications are profound. Already, Trump’s team has frozen formula funding and canceled grants without notice, undermining school districts’ ability to plan around promised federal support.
Courts, watchdogs, and the coming legal battles
Legal challenges to Trump’s impoundment maneuvers are advancing, though none are likely to reach the Supreme Court before next year. The GAO, led by Comptroller General Gene Dodaro , has already ruled that at least five of the administration’s funding changes, including cuts to Head Start, school modernization, and library services, violated federal law.
Dodaro, whose 15-year term ends in December, has hinted that suing the administration may be a last resort. The historical resonance is clear: The last time a comptroller general sued a president over impoundment was in 1975, under Gerald Ford . Trump will now appoint Dodaro’s successor, ensuring another layer of political drama in an already volatile budget season.
A precarious future for education funding
The clash over the FY2026 budget encapsulates a deeper struggle over the balance of power between Congress and the presidency, between legislative order and executive improvisation. For schools, it translates into a precarious waiting game.
If rescissions move forward, Title I schools serving the most vulnerable populations will be forced to cut back mid-year. If impoundment tactics persist, even appropriated funds may never reach classrooms. And if Congress yet again defaults to continuing resolutions, schools will face the paralysis of uncertainty, unable to plan beyond a few months at a time.
At a moment when American education is already strained by inequities, political brinkmanship threatens to compound instability. As lawmakers scramble to avoid a shutdown, the fate of millions of students hangs in the balance—collateral in a high-stakes test of constitutional limits and political will.
You may also like
Sausages are 'much tastier' if you add one simple ingredient when frying them
I'm A Celebrity bosses confirm new All Stars series with huge twist
Debby Ryan's age, rockstar husband and forgotten roles as she's pregnant with first child
Air fryer owners urged to avoid common mistake that can send bills soaring
Will Naveen Patnaik Stand Against BJP in Vice Presidential Election? Congress Challenges BJD
