Well, howdy there, Internet people, it's Bell again.

So today, we're going to talk about pocket recisions and Trump losing again.

This is one of those things that sounds like boring Capitol Hill procedures and jargon that is actually really important

and is going to feature prominently

in budget discussions that may lead to a government shutdown. It's a lot like how we talked

about the bird rule for months and then it became the thing that stopped the worst parts

of Trump's one big beautiful bill. Yes, it was actually going to be worse than what got passed, if you can

imagine. A judge ruled that a pocket rescission was in fact illegal. The judge gave the Trump

administration until the end of the month to spend the money appropriated by Congress and said,

quote, there is not a plausible interpretation of the statutes that would justify the billions of dollars they plan to withhold.

Quick civics lesson.

Congress controls the money.

The president is supposed to be the congressional errand boy when it comes to spending money and doing it in

the way he was instructed. That's how the Constitution is set up. So, when Congress passes

spending bills, the President has to do it. Beyond that, there's a law called the Impoundment

Control Act that sets out rules for withholding money.

Basically, the president can send a message to Congress saying, are you sure about spending this

money? And pause the spending for 45 days. If the money gets clawed back, that's a rescission.

Trump is trying to engage in a so-called pocket rescission, where the intent to withhold the funding is announced with less than 45 days

before the end of the fiscal year. This effectively cancels the money. That pocket rescission was just ruled illegal.

It matters because this is a major hurdle for any government spending package.

Democrats have no reason to work out a deal if Trump could just not spend the money and undermine the deal,

...