Latest news with #Vought
Yahoo
a day ago
- Business
- Yahoo
White House floats a new funding trick — and GOP lawmakers grimace
Russ Vought's relationship with Republican appropriators was already strained. Then he started talking about pursuing the ultimate end-run around their funding power heading into the fall. The White House budget director has been persistently touting the virtues of 'pocket rescissions,' a tactic he has floated as a way to codify the spending cuts Elon Musk made while atop his Department of Government Efficiency initiative, and which the federal government's top watchdog says is illegal. On Capitol Hill, leading GOP appropriators see Vought's comments as another shot against them in an escalating battle with the Trump administration over Congress' 'power of the purse.' And they warn that the budget director's adversarial posture hinders their relationship with the White House as they work to head off a government shutdown in just over three months. "Pocket rescissions are illegal, in my judgment," Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a brief interview this week, "and contradict the will of Congress and the constitutional authority of Congress to appropriate funds." To hear Vought tell it, a "pocket rescission" is a legitimate tool at the executive branch's disposal. In such a scenario, President Donald Trump would issue a formal request to claw back funding, similar to the $9.4 billion package he sent lawmakers this month to cancel congressionally approved funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid. But in this case, the memo would land on Capitol Hill less than 45 days before the new fiscal year is set to begin Oct. 1. By withholding the cash for that full timeframe — regardless of action by Congress — the White House would treat the funding as expired when the current fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. The dizzying ploy is another means toward the same goal Trump has been chasing since Inauguration Day: to spend less money than Congress has explicitly mandated in law. But the Government Accountability Office says the maneuver is unlawful, and the GOP lawmakers in charge of divvying up federal funding are wary that Vought is now talking about it in the open. 'I understand we want to use all the arrows in our quiver, and he wants to use all his,' Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, said of Vought in an interview. 'But every time you pull out an arrow, you have to be ready for the consequences, right?' Joyce continued: 'It's going to change the course of conversations and how each side works toward coming to resolution going forward.' Vought declined last week to elaborate on his intentions, when pressed in person on Capitol Hill about his plans to use the ploy in the coming months. His office also did not return a request for comment. However, the budget director laid out a detailed argument for the maneuver on television earlier in the month — then mentioned it again as he left a meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson and then during a later hearing with House appropriators. 'The very Impoundment Control Act itself allows for a procedure called pocket rescissions, later in the year, to be able to bank some of these savings, without the bill actually being passed,' Vought said on CNN. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used. But it is there. And we intend to use all of these tools.' Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the Interior Department and the EPA, recently warned that the gambit is 'a bad idea" that "undermines Congress' authority," after saying last month that he thinks "it's illegal" for a president to withhold funding lawmakers approved. But many top Republican appropriators — while scoffing at Vought's comments — aren't willing to engage in rhetorical arguments about the bounds of the president's spending power. 'Talking is one thing. We'll see if he actually does it,' Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the military, said about Vought's comments. 'He's got his ideas,' said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), chair of the appropriations panel responsible for funding the departments of Transportation and Housing. 'I'd have some concerns about it,' said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services — all targets of Trump's deepest funding cuts. Tension has been building for months between those Republican appropriators and Vought, who has a history of testing the limits of funding law: When he served in this same role during Trump's first administration, he froze aid to Ukraine in a move that helped set the stage for the president's first impeachment trial. Republican funding leaders are irked that the White House has yet to deliver a full budget request, which appropriators rely upon to write their dozen funding measures. Vought has already left open the door to withholding the new money if the administration doesn't agree with the spending priorities in the final bills. They also say the president's budget director and other Cabinet secretaries have withheld essential information about how they are using federal cash as the Trump administration fights off more than 100 legal challenges around the country. The suits are seeking to overturn the White House's freezing of billions of dollars Congress already approved for myriad programs and agencies. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) issued a rare rebuke of Vought this spring for taking down the public website showing how agencies are expected to disburse federal dollars. But the Oklahoma Republican generally avoids any public criticism of the Trump administration and is not sounding off now about Vought's embrace of pocket rescissions. Cole said this month that he would 'look at each individual' request the White House sends to claw back funding, now that the House has passed the $9.4 billion package to nix money for foreign aid and public broadcasting. That package of funding cuts now sits in the Senate, where some top Republicans are interested in tweaking the plan to protect funding for preventing AIDS around the world and supporting PBS programming in their home states. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) suggested Vought's public comments about using pocket rescissions could be intended to encourage reluctant senators to clear it. 'Maybe that's the way to let members know: Vote for the ones he sends up,' Johnson said, noting that he would be 'totally supportive' of Vought using the tactic this fall. Another Senate fiscal hawk, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.), said he believes the law 'does allow for pocket rescissions.' 'I think the president should have more power not to spend money,' Paul told reporters last week. 'So if we have a way to reduce spending, by all means, we should use it.' No court has ruled on the president's power to cancel funding by sending Congress a request and then running out the clock at the end of the fiscal year. But GAO has twice weighed in. In 2018, the watchdog found that the law 'does not permit the withholding of funds through their date of expiration." Vought, though, likes to cite an older GAO conclusion from 1975: It determined that Congress was unable to reject then-President Gerald Ford's requests to claw back funding 'in time to prevent the budget authority from lapsing.' Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
Politico
2 days ago
- Business
- Politico
White House floats a new funding trick — and GOP lawmakers grimace
Russ Vought's relationship with Republican appropriators was already strained. Then he started talking about pursuing the ultimate end-run around their funding power heading into the fall. The White House budget director has been persistently touting the virtues of 'pocket rescissions,' a tactic he has floated as a way to codify the spending cuts Elon Musk made while atop his Department of Government Efficiency initiative, and which the federal government's top watchdog says is illegal. On Capitol Hill, leading GOP appropriators see Vought's comments as another shot against them in an escalating battle with the Trump administration over Congress' 'power of the purse.' And they warn that the budget director's adversarial posture hinders their relationship with the White House as they work to head off a government shutdown in just over three months. 'Pocket rescissions are illegal, in my judgment,' Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) said in a brief interview this week, 'and contradict the will of Congress and the constitutional authority of Congress to appropriate funds.' To hear Vought tell it, a 'pocket rescission' is a legitimate tool at the executive branch's disposal. In such a scenario, President Donald Trump would issue a formal request to claw back funding, similar to the $9.4 billion package he sent lawmakers this month to cancel congressionally approved funding for public broadcasting and foreign aid. But in this case, the memo would land on Capitol Hill less than 45 days before the new fiscal year is set to begin Oct. 1. By withholding the cash for that full timeframe — regardless of action by Congress — the White House would treat the funding as expired when the current fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. The dizzying ploy is another means toward the same goal Trump has been chasing since Inauguration Day: to spend less money than Congress has explicitly mandated in law. But the Government Accountability Office says the maneuver is unlawful, and the GOP lawmakers in charge of divvying up federal funding are wary that Vought is now talking about it in the open. 'I understand we want to use all the arrows in our quiver, and he wants to use all his,' Rep. David Joyce (R-Ohio), a senior member of the House Appropriations Committee, said of Vought in an interview. 'But every time you pull out an arrow, you have to be ready for the consequences, right?' Joyce continued: 'It's going to change the course of conversations and how each side works toward coming to resolution going forward.' Vought declined last week to elaborate on his intentions, when pressed in person on Capitol Hill about his plans to use the ploy in the coming months. His office also did not return a request for comment. However, the budget director laid out a detailed argument for the maneuver on television earlier in the month — then mentioned it again as he left a meeting with Speaker Mike Johnson and then during a later hearing with House appropriators. 'The very Impoundment Control Act itself allows for a procedure called pocket rescissions, later in the year, to be able to bank some of these savings, without the bill actually being passed,' Vought said on CNN. 'It's a provision that has been rarely used. But it is there. And we intend to use all of these tools.' Rep. Mike Simpson of Idaho, who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the Interior Department and the EPA, recently warned that the gambit is 'a bad idea' that 'undermines Congress' authority,' after saying last month that he thinks 'it's illegal' for a president to withhold funding lawmakers approved. But many top Republican appropriators — while scoffing at Vought's comments — aren't willing to engage in rhetorical arguments about the bounds of the president's spending power. 'Talking is one thing. We'll see if he actually does it,' Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Calif.), who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the military, said about Vought's comments. 'He's got his ideas,' said Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), chair of the appropriations panel responsible for funding the departments of Transportation and Housing. 'I'd have some concerns about it,' said Rep. Robert Aderholt (R-Ala.), who chairs the appropriations panel that funds the departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services — all targets of Trump's deepest funding cuts. Tension has been building for months between those Republican appropriators and Vought, who has a history of testing the limits of funding law: When he served in this same role during Trump's first administration, he froze aid to Ukraine in a move that helped set the stage for the president's first impeachment trial. Republican funding leaders are irked that the White House has yet to deliver a full budget request, which appropriators rely upon to write their dozen funding measures. Vought has already left open the door to withholding the new money if the administration doesn't agree with the spending priorities in the final bills. They also say the president's budget director and other Cabinet secretaries have withheld essential information about how they are using federal cash as the Trump administration fights off more than 100 legal challenges around the country. The suits are seeking to overturn the White House's freezing of billions of dollars Congress already approved for myriad programs and agencies. House Appropriations Chair Tom Cole (R-Okla.) issued a rare rebuke of Vought this spring for taking down the public website showing how agencies are expected to disburse federal dollars. But the Oklahoma Republican generally avoids any public criticism of the Trump administration and is not sounding off now about Vought's embrace of pocket rescissions. Cole said this month that he would 'look at each individual' request the White House sends to claw back funding, now that the House has passed the $9.4 billion package to nix money for foreign aid and public broadcasting. That package of funding cuts now sits in the Senate, where some top Republicans are interested in tweaking the plan to protect funding for preventing AIDS around the world and supporting PBS programming in their home states. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) suggested Vought's public comments about using pocket rescissions could be intended to encourage reluctant senators to clear it. 'Maybe that's the way to let members know: Vote for the ones he sends up,' Johnson said, noting that he would be 'totally supportive' of Vought using the tactic this fall. Another Senate fiscal hawk, Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Chair Rand Paul (R-Ky.), said he believes the law 'does allow for pocket rescissions.' 'I think the president should have more power not to spend money,' Paul told reporters last week. 'So if we have a way to reduce spending, by all means, we should use it.' No court has ruled on the president's power to cancel funding by sending Congress a request and then running out the clock at the end of the fiscal year. But GAO has twice weighed in. In 2018, the watchdog found that the law 'does not permit the withholding of funds through their date of expiration.' Vought, though, likes to cite an older GAO conclusion from 1975: It determined that Congress was unable to reject then-President Gerald Ford's requests to claw back funding 'in time to prevent the budget authority from lapsing.' Katherine Tully-McManus contributed to this report.
Politico
4 days ago
- Business
- Politico
Is FEMA solvent? Depends who you ask
Presented by The nation's top emergency response agency has repeatedly warned that it will run out of money to respond to natural disasters by August. So some emergency managers found it jarring when White House budget chief Russ Vought insisted that the federal disaster fund is 'flush' through September, writes Thomas Frank. They began asking: Is Vought misinformed — or is the administration planning to keep the money pot full by slashing aid to states as the Atlantic hurricane season revs up? President Donald Trump has long promised to reduce the Federal Emergency Management Agency's aid to states, putting pressure on governors to handle ballooning disaster costs as climate change intensifies storms, floods and wildfires. A spokesperson for the Office of Management and Budget declined to address Tom's questions about the contradiction between FEMA's assessments and remarks that Vought made in the Oval Office on June 10. 'We're in a very good place,' Vought said at the time, standing behind Trump. The budget chief added that the disaster fund had $13 billion, and that other federal disaster accounts 'are funded, they're flush.' In an email, Rachel Cauley affirmed Vought's statement that the disaster fund 'is fully funded.' In contrast, FEMA projected in its June 3 monthly report that the fund's balance would drop to $2.8 billion in July and enter a deficit by August that would reach $7.8 billion in September. Vought could be 'clueless,' said former Biden-era FEMA chief of staff Michael Coen. He warned that if the White House believes the agency has adequate funding to get the country through hurricane season — which lasts from June 1 through Nov. 30 — then it won't request supplemental funding from Congress. If there's no supplemental funding to replenish the disaster pot, FEMA will be forced to halt longer-term recovery efforts to shore up cash for emergency expenses, such as search and rescue operations. FEMA is actively supporting 81 major disasters and eight emergency declarations. 'FEMA is going to have to stop funding recovery projects — fires in Maui, fires in California, the current recovery that just started in St. Louis,' Coen told Tom. Such a move is not without precedent, Tom writes. Since 2003, the agency has cut off funding for long-term recovery projects 10 times when its disaster fund dropped too low (roughly $3 billion). The disaster fund has faced chronic shortages in recent years due largely to Trump's decision in the 2020 pandemic to give every state disaster aid for virus-related costs. The move was widely supported at the time, but states claimed costs that exceeded projections by tens of billions of dollars. It's Tuesday — thank you for tuning in to POLITICO's Power Switch. I'm your host, Arianna Skibell. Power Switch is brought to you by the journalists behind E&E News and POLITICO Energy. Send your tips, comments, questions to askibell@ Today in POLITICO Energy's podcast: Zack Colman breaks down how energy-related agencies are struggling to function amid administrative budget cuts, work stoppages and general uncertainty. Power Centers Senate megabill text won't save solar creditsDespite weeks of saying they would go easy on President Joe Biden's clean energy tax cuts, senators' tax portion of the Republican megabill — released Monday evening — would do little to protect incentives for wind, solar and hydrogen power, write Kelsey Brugger and Andres Picon. The new text is, however, friendly to geothermal, nuclear and hydropower. Trump's firing of nuclear regulator raises eyebrowsTrump's abrupt firing Friday of Nuclear Regulatory Commissioner Christopher Hanson marks another move by the White House to gain control of the independent agency as it heads into a critical review of safety regulations governing a lineup of new reactors, writes Peter Behr. Democrats in the House and Senate condemned Trump's action, saying it violated the specific terms of the 1946 Atomic Energy Act that established the nation's civilian nuclear energy program. The legislation, reaffirmed in 1954, says that a commissioner may be removed for 'inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office.' Trump's quiet truce on California waterTrump promised to break California's water rules wide open. So far, he's mostly working within them, writes Camille von Kaenel. Five months after Trump issued a pair of directives for federal agencies to overturn state and Biden-era rules limiting water deliveries, the federal government has done no such thing. Instead, it's quietly increasing water flows, following the very rules Trump once railed against — at least for now. In Other News Inside the 'Big Beautiful Bill": Trump wants your EV rebate — and your heat pump, too. Hurricane season comes to life: Erick is set to strike Mexico as a hurricane this week. Subscriber Zone A showcase of some of our best subscriber content. The Trump administration green-lit a plan for an Arizona mine that could create a crater deeper than the height of the Eiffel Tower on ground that some Native Americans consider sacred. A project to address extreme heat in California prisons has been stopped after its EPA grant was canceled last month. Trump nominated Katherine Scarlett to lead the White House Council on Environmental Quality, where she will oversee efforts to hasten permitting for energy infrastructure, data centers and other public works projects. That's it for today, folks! Thanks for reading.
Los Angeles Times
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Los Angeles Times
‘The Boys' never pulls punches. But its creator fears a ‘cooling effect' on political TV
'The Boys' is known for chest-bursting tentacles, shape-shifters who bed your boyfriend and merciless satire of capitalist excess and corporate-controlled media. But last year, Season 4 of the Prime Video series set its sights on a new target in its evolution from comic-book adaptation to hot-button must-see: politics. Set during a presidential election cycle that eerily reflected the one going on in the real world, the show's metaphorical relevance soared to an all-time high. 'Despite all the sex and violence and madness, we take a lot of pride in, maybe, being the most current show on TV right now,' showrunner Eric Kripke says on a Zoom call from Toronto, where 'The Boys'' fifth and final season is in production. 'You're not really expecting a superhero show to have the vibe of 'Veep.' It's just another way that we try to be unexpected.' Unexpected yet strangely prescient. As an election that will determine the fate of democracy looms, the season details the megalomaniacal Homelander's schemes to gain political power to match his Superman-like abilities. There's something Elon Musk-like about how the most powerful man on Earth wants to make himself — and Vought International, the media/chemical/defense corporation he heads — America's governing oligarch. There are other elements we might associate with the current administration sprinkled throughout the season too. A Vought network tries to turn a 'Sesame Street'-style show into fascist propaganda. Collectible Homelander NFTs are proposed. Masked agents grab dissidents off the streets. All coincidental, considering scripts are written long before the final product debuts. 'Sometimes we joke, a little unsettlingly, that we're Satan's Writers' Room,' Kripke says with a laugh. 'But because we're writing about what we view as societal problems, the unfortunate truth is these things were problems two years ago when we wrote them and they'll be ongoing until we really figure out how to get a handle on a lot of this and maybe stop trusting the people in power quite so blindly.' The mightiest of Vought's ultra-marketed superstars, Homelander, played by Antony Starr, is believed by many in the world of 'The Boys' to be America's greatest hero; in reality, he's an oversensitive, egotistical demagogue. Seemingly invincible, he tends to win despite setbacks that might destroy a lesser being. But Starr insists he doesn't model the character on President Trump. Much. 'Not specifically,' the blond, square-jawed New Zealander says during the same Zoom interview. 'I'm an equal-opportunity poacher. I've taken from a lot of different people. Last season, the idea was really teased about Homelander being like a Caesar. If you dip not far back into history, there are just so many people to choose from. 'What I have found about using one specific person for any character — especially with someone like this — is it doesn't work,' Starr continues. 'You get a two-dimensional portrayal. So, Homelander is a conglomerate of tyrants.' After all, Homelander, unlike the president, craves breast milk, collects his gray hairs and tears people's torsos apart. Although Kripke has described him as analogous to Trump in the past, he notes that Starr brings out aspects of the character that make him his own man. 'I don't think Homelander is sympathetic, but you can empathize with him,' the showrunner says. 'That's the magic trick that Antony pulls off. Homelander sees himself as so much better and bigger than human, and yet he's inescapably human. That conflict, I think, is driving him slowly insane. 'But he's authoritarian in general,' Kripke admits. 'Obviously, things are happening in the particular country I live in that I respond to. This is a reflection of the things we see and the writers are scared of. What we found early on about the superheroes in this world is there's this interesting intersection of fascism and celebrity. It's a unique yet very current notion — not just in the States but all over the world — how people are using the power of celebrity to advance authoritarian ideas.' With studios backtracking on diversity initiatives and media magnates like Jeff Bezos — who owns the Washington Post as well as Amazon — reticent to find themselves on the wrong end of the president's bully pulpit, concerns that there may be pressure to ease off on 'The Boys'' scathing satire seem appropriate. Kripke says no. 'There's been a total of zero notes about pulling our punches or about making things less political or less savage,' he reveals. 'The various powers that be have been really great about it. I think they know that we'd just do it anyway, so why bother? 'Look, not about this particular show, but I'm certainly worried about a cooling effect when, now more than ever, you need people in the back of the classroom throwing spitballs,' Kripke cautions. 'That's not just healthy, that's vital. It's really important that people who can thumb their nose at it don't get scared.' And though he leaves the politics to the writers' room, the man who plays Homelander understands that 'The Boys'' bold perspective is what's made it so compelling. 'I think actors are some of the worst people to listen to for political advice, especially ones from New Zealand,' Starr says. 'But I will say the passion that our writers clearly put into what they're doing, the care and the love that they have for their country, for what's happening socially and politically, has a broad impact. We all feel like we're part of a machine that has something to say. 'It's a big show in every way and its message is bigger: Never pull punches. Regardless [of] whether you agree or disagree, at least we are part of a show that's putting its neck on the line and taking risks across the board, from performance to thematics to commentary.'
Scientific American
10-06-2025
- Business
- Scientific American
White House Launches Another Assault on Science Funding
CLIMATEWIRE | The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies. The architect behind the move is Russ Vought, who leads the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. Vought has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — which has not been reported previously — appears designed to test those boundaries. His office late last week directed several agencies, including EPA, the Interior and Health and Human Services departments as well as the National Science Foundation, to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to both agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. POLITICO's E&E News granted anonymity to the two people so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the 'power of the purse' lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. The deferrals strategy seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power of the purse and the Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, it was described as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet. The White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail, said one administration source with direct knowledge of the effort. OMB officials are preparing a unique strategy to weaken congressional budget authority under a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Vought has said repeatedly he does not agree with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which Democrats and legal scholars have said he already has violated. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN recently. The White House already has sent to Congress a $9.4 billion rescissions package to permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the end of the fiscal year. If a package is introduced then, Congress has a very limited time to act — and if it does not do so — the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass Congress, the official said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered around Labor Department spending, The deferrals package is a third and separate strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority "to provide for contingencies" or "to achieve savings" through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' Fight could land at Supreme Court The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the source with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials have an objection, said another source at an impacted agency. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. "It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made," the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of "The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking." 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration source with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education "accounts for a deferral package," NSF budget director Caitlyn Fife wrote Friday in a note to top officials. "I imagine you will all have questions, as do we," she said. "However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations." An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said that offices that were relying on previous year funding could see their "programs gutted." The agency source also predicted that, if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. The White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure, he said. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. 'This is a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions, and this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
