Trump withholds $2B in education grants Congress already approved

The White House Office of Management and Budget is withholding more than $2 billion in congressionally appropriated education funding as of May 7, 2026. OMB, led by Director Russell Vought, has not apportioned funding for more than 30 separate K-12 and higher education grant programs that Congress funded in the fiscal year 2026 spending deal passed in February. More than seven months into the fiscal year, those accounts show little or no funding released.

The affected programs include $220 million for teacher preparation and training, $235 million for education research, $150 million for community schools, $139 million for magnet schools, and $23 million for American History and Civics education. For the civics program, OMB has released just $200,000 of the full $23 million congressional appropriation.

This practice can become impoundment — when a president refuses to spend money that Congress has appropriated. The Government Accountability Office says impoundment includes executive action or inaction that delays or withholds enacted funding, and the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 governs how presidents may propose delaying or canceling appropriated funds. That law, passed after President Nixon's systematic refusal to spend domestic program funds, requires the president to either spend appropriated money as directed or submit a formal rescission request asking Congress to cancel the spending.

Congress must approve a rescission request within the statutory window, or the funds must be made available. President Trump has not submitted a rescission request to Congress for these fiscal 2026 education appropriations. Legal experts say prolonged withholding without that statutory process could amount to illegal impoundment.

A nonpartisan government watchdog — the Government Accountability Office — has already found the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act multiple times in 2025 funding disputes across different agencies. Those findings involved OMB withholding congressionally appropriated funds without using the required rescission process. The July 2025 Senate Appropriations minority release, led by Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA), said GAO had found illegal impoundment for the fourth time in recent weeks.

GAO findings are legal decisions from Congress's watchdog, but they do not automatically force the executive branch to release funds. The executive branch has historically complied with GAO impoundment decisions. OMB under Vought has disputed several GAO conclusions and continued defending a broader view of presidential spending control.

The pattern of OMB apportionment decisions closely mirrors a blueprint Russell Vought promoted before rejoining government. In Project 2025, Vought argued that OMB could use apportionment authority to reshape federal spending and challenge what he called limits imposed by the Impoundment Control Act. The theory gives the president far more leverage over money after Congress has already passed appropriations into law.

Vought's legal theory holds that the president retains inherent constitutional authority to manage spending even after appropriations pass, and that apportioning funds at a trickle — rather than refusing to spend them outright — does not necessarily constitute impoundment. Many budget law experts reject that distinction because the practical effect is the same: Congress approved the money, but schools cannot use it.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, confirmed by the Senate 51-45 on March 3, 2025, has endorsed the administration's effort to redirect education funding. In an April 2026 Senate Appropriations hearing, McMahon defended block grants as a way to give states more discretion over federal education dollars, rather than maintaining targeted competitive grants that support particular programs.

McMahon has said she wants to shrink federal involvement in K-12 education and channel remaining federal funds through state block grants. That fight is not just about process. In the same budget debate, McMahon also defended cutting several Minority-Serving Institution grants after the Justice Department said some race-conscious programs were unconstitutional. Critics say that move is part of a broader rollback of federal protections and targeted support for students of color, even when the administration describes it as race-neutral budgeting.

If OMB does not release the withheld funds within five months, approximately $1.4 billion in fiscal 2026 appropriations will expire and return to the U.S. Treasury. Money appropriated for a specific fiscal year typically expires at the end of that year, which runs through September 30, 2026. Once it expires, the funds are gone and cannot be accessed without a new appropriation from Congress.

The practical effect on schools and programs is already visible. School districts that applied for competitive grant awards have received no word on whether their grants will be funded. Teacher preparation programs at universities that anticipated federal awards have had to delay hiring and program planning. Advocacy groups have documented cases where districts halted program expansions because anticipated federal funding never arrived.

The constitutional issue at stake is the power of the purse. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says no money shall be drawn from the Treasury except because of appropriations made by law. This provision makes Congress the ultimate authority over federal spending. The president's role is to faithfully execute the laws Congress passes — including spending laws.

The Framers gave Congress the power of the purse deliberately. They saw control over government finances as essential to preventing executive tyranny. The Supreme Court reinforced this principle in Train v. City of New York, ruling 9-0 that the Nixon administration could not frustrate Congress's spending scheme by allotting less than the full amount required by the statute.

Previous presidents have clashed with Congress over spending priorities, but the scale and theory of the current withholding are unusual. President Nixon's impoundments directly prompted Congress to pass the Impoundment Control Act in 1974. That law has constrained executive spending power for 50 years. The Trump administration's current approach tests whether the law's enforcement mechanisms are strong enough when the executive branch disputes the law's scope.

Congress has several tools to respond: it can press GAO to continue investigating withheld appropriations, file suit to force release of funds, hold confirmation hearings for administration officials and condition approval on fund release, or attach statutory conditions to future appropriations requiring timely spending. As of May 7, Democratic senators had called for more investigations and enforcement steps, but the withheld education funds had not been released.