Rescission:
the act of officially ending a law, taking back a decision, or saying that an agreement no longer exists [Cambridge Dictionary]
Noted in “Bring Back Rescissions: How to Realize DOGE Savings,” Romina Boccia and Dominik Lett, The Debt Dispatch:
The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has encountered repeated legal setbacks as a result of its efforts to shrink the federal workforce, cut costs, and reshape the executive branch. Part of the challenge that the administration faces is a constitutional one—Congress, not the executive or judicial branches, is vested with the power of the purse. This means that congressional action is unavoidable if the administration wants to deliver substantial, lasting savings. To add legitimacy to DOGE’s efforts to cut spending and encourage Congress to take responsibility, the president should submit a rescissions package (or multiple) under the Impoundment Control Act that officially requests Congress to cancel certain spending.
Glancing over the rest of the article, I don’t think Boccia and Lett understand the nature of Trump and Musk’s activities in the least. This isn’t about reducing spending, it’s about establishing dominance so that later actions, such as transferring the contents of Fort Knox to Mr Musk, or creating a “strategic reserve” of bitcoin, is not considered illegal.
