'Spending other people's money': Trump cancels half a billion dollars meant to benefit immigrants * WorldNetDaily * by Virginia Grace McKinnon, The Daily Signal
Collins said the administration’s rescission undermined Congress’s constitutional authority over spending.
SOURCE CHECK
TAP FOR WHYCredibility rates WorldNetDaily, which republished this story. The other scores rate the article itself.
WorldNetDaily is a strongly partisan outlet with limited transparency about its editorial and correction practices. This page credits The Daily Signal’s reporting, but the publisher’s own institutional credibility remains low.
- Source type — The outlet is a highly partisan publisher, which lowers confidence in its institutional neutrality.
- Author attribution — The page credits a named Daily Signal reporter, indicating the article is reproduced with attribution.
- Editorial standards — The page does not establish clear standards or independent verification practices.
- Correction history — No corrections information is apparent in the article.
The article includes attributed statements from administration officials and lawmakers on both sides of the dispute, and identifies the legal basis they contest. It gives little detail about the affected programs or the reasoning behind the cited GAO and Supreme Court positions, and does not include independent or affected-party perspectives.
HOW WE SCORE ↗The article presents both administration defenses and objections from senior lawmakers, but gives more space and favorable framing to supporters of the rescission. The legal dispute is reported without much independent explanation or detail about the programs affected.
- Counterarguments presented — Collins and Merkley challenge the legality and constitutional implications of the action.
- Source diversity — The article quotes administration officials and lawmakers from opposing positions but no independent legal experts or affected organizations.
- Loaded language — Some descriptions adopt the administration’s or lawmakers’ politically charged characterizations of the programs.
- Omitted context — It offers limited explanation of the affected programs and the basis for the cited legal rulings.
The article adopts the administration’s and conservative lawmakers’ descriptions of the funding as wasteful and harmful, while presenting the opposing position mainly through brief objections from Senate Democrats and the appropriations chair.
- Language tone — The headline and descriptions such as “open-border” and “left-wing priorities” use framing aligned with the administration’s critics of the programs.
- Source selection — Several conservative lawmakers praise the rescission; opposing views are represented chiefly by Collins and Merkley.
- Framing — The article foregrounds the return of taxpayer funds and conservative approval, with the constitutional dispute appearing later.
Republished with credit
Republished from The Daily Signal, with credit to the original publisher.
161 stories · 56–58 · updated Oct 6, 2026
This is The Daily Signal's own score, and this article is credited to The Daily Signal. The host score in the Source Check is WorldNetDaily's.
The White House returned $810 million in soon-to-expire funds through a pocket rescission, saying the money had supported programs for noncitizens. Sen. Susan Collins criticized the move as an attempt to undermine Congress’s spending authority, while the administration defended its legality.
The White House Office of Management and Budget returned $810 million in funds appropriated by Congress that were due to expire on Sept. 30. The White House described the money as supporting programs for noncitizens and said President Trump’s border policies meant the funds were no longer needed. The article lists grants and services among the affected programs.
Sen. Susan Collins said the administration had acted without warning or consultation and called the rescission an attempt to undermine Congress’s constitutional power of the purse. She cited a Government Accountability Office ruling that the move was illegal. OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta defended the administration’s legal authority, while Sen. Jeff Merkley also called the action an “illegal line-item veto.” The article says the Supreme Court sided with the White House last year in a case involving a similar timeline.
Community verdict
12 VOTES
People in this story
SWIPE →Senate Appropriations Committee chair criticizing the rescission
President whose administration returned the funds
Trump's version of this story ↗
OMB director quoted about the administration’s consideration of another rescission
Representative praising the return of the funds
Representative supporting the spending cuts
Representative praising the administration’s action
Senator criticizing the rescission as an illegal line-item veto
Part of a bigger story
16 OUTLETSOutlets agree the Trump administration moved to cancel $810 million in congressionally approved funding, and Collins called the move unlawful and an infringement on Congress’s spending authority. Left-leaning outlets stress the threat to Congress’s spending power and cuts affecting immigrant-serving programs; one also spotlights criticism of Collins’s vote to confirm the budget chief. Center outlets largely report a dispute over congressional authority, including the administration’s rationale and Collins’s break with Trump. Right-leaning outlets stress Collins’s challenge to Trump, while varying between defending the rescission as cutting wasteful or noncitizen-program spending and focusing on her possible ban.
- ARTICLES
- 18
- OUTLETS
- 16
- AVG CRED
- 72
Discussion · 0
Loading comments…