Well, let’s see if Cboldt wants to opine on this as he has an understanding of the legal machinations of Congress more than most of the people that post here.
*POTUS Trump was not written into the 1974 act.
There is lots of jargon in the news stories that I don't have an accurate handle on. Rescission, deferral; I know that "line item veto" does not exist, but I don;t know the legal effect of rescission or deferral.
Federal spending is a complicated system, with a distinction between budgeting (which looks like solid numbers, but really isn't) and appropriation - which is supposedly solid numbers but has varying amounts of executive flexibility.
My impression is that even at the appropriation stage, the language passed can allow for a certain amount of discretion. See for example Trump moving money from the Pentagon to the border wall.
But on this bill, I know squat about the exact language, plus my weakness in not knowing the legal power of "rescission" and "deferral."
My hunch is that this is one of those "win win" for the government and its cronies and "lose lose" for the people. Business as usual. Both sides in the government will claim victory over the other.