Vought pushes back against idea that ‘big, beautiful bill' will raise deficit
Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought on Sunday pushed back against the idea that a sizable package of Republican priorities that recently made it through the House is going to raise the deficit.
'This bill doesn't increase the deficit or hurt the debt,' Vought told CNN's Dana Bash on 'State of the Union,' responding to earlier comments from tech billionaire Elon Musk.
'In fact, it lowers it by $1.4 trillion,' he added.
In a recent 'CBS Sunday Morning' interview, Musk said that he 'was, like, disappointed to see the massive spending bill, frankly, which increases the budget deficit … and it undermines the work that the [Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)] team is doing.'
The 'One Big Beautiful Bill Act' passed the House late last month following a series of final negotiations and text changes that ultimately secured Republican support for the bill.
'This is a $1.4 trillion, over 10 years deficit reduction. It's $1.6 trillion in mandatory savings,' Vought said Sunday. 'Obviously, we have a little bit of spending in there as well for border and defense, but that is the biggest mandatory savings package that we have seen since the 1970s — 1997.'
Musk also said in a recent CBS interview that he believed that 'a bill can be big, or it could be beautiful.
'I don't know if it could be both,' he added. 'My personal opinion.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNBC
22 minutes ago
- CNBC
New Elizabeth Warren report chronicles '130 days of Elon Musk'
Sen. Elizabeth Warren's office issued a report Tuesday chronicling Elon Musk's "130 days" in President Donald Trump's administration, accusing the billionaire of using his government perch to enrich himself and his businesses. "Musk and individuals acting on his behalf have been involved in dozens of questionable actions that raise questions about corruption, ethics and conflicts of interest," says the report by the Massachusetts Democrat's office. The 14-page report outlines more than 100 times that Warren's team believes Musk abused his role as a "special government employee" to benefit his private interests. It accuses Musk of violating "norms at an astonishing pace," actions that it calls "scandalous behavior regardless of whether it subjects him to criminal prosecution." The White House did not respond to CNBC's request for comment on the report. CNBC also reached out for comment to Musk, Quinn Emanuel partner Alex Spiro and Omead Afshar, a Tesla vice president. They did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Musk last week wrapped up his official government service leading DOGE, or Department of Government Efficiency," which is engaged in a broad effort to slash federal government spending. His four months leading DOGE as a special government employee were marked by unprecedented upheaval to the federal workforce and government agencies. Warren's team accuses Musk of using the federal government to promote his businesses. Musk, who is the world's richest person, is CEO of Tesla, SpaceX and artificial intelligence startup xAI. For instance, it highlights the time the White House lawn was turned into a temporary Tesla showroom. It also outlines more than two dozen instances where the Trump administration or government agencies "have entered or explored new lucrative contracts" with Musk's companies, such as Customs and Border Protection exploring using Starlink technology in surveillance towers. The report also outlines six times that the Trump administration or federal agencies halted enforcement actions against any of Musk's companies, or the times that DOGE targeted government agencies investigating the companies. For instance, it says that the Occupational Safety and Health Administration closed an investigation into Tesla for "allegedly violating workplace safety rules." "Musk's companies have received or are being considered for large contracts with the federal government, with foreign governments, and with other private sector companies," the report says. The report is not the first time that Musk has come under fire for alleged conflicts of interest during his DOGE tenure. Three Democratic senators, including Warren, sent a letter last week urging the Justice Department and other authorities to probe whether DOGE employees broke conflict-of-interest laws by owning stocks in companies that may have benefited from their government-cutting work.
25 minutes ago
Trump's funding bill faces pushback from some Senate republicans
Republican Rep. Russell Fry from South Carolina joined ABC News to talk about President Donald Trump's 'Big Beautiful Bill.'
San Francisco Chronicle
29 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE
WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency. It's a process known as 'rescission,' which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump's aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies. The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a 'disgusting abomination' for increasing the federal deficit. White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds. 'We are certainly willing and able to send up additional packages if the congressional will is there,' Vought told reporters. Here's what to know about the rescissions request: Will the rescissions make a dent in the national debt? The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday's briefing that Vought — a 'well-respected fiscal hawk,' she called him — would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds. 'He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,' Leavitt said. Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September 'and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.' 'It's one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,' he added. What programs are targeted by the rescissions? A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development. NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR. The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia. Is the rescissions package likely to get passed? House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them. 'This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE's findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,' Johnson said. 'Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.' Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber's most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration. 'We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,' the group said in a press release. 'Passing this rescissions package will be an important demonstration of Congress's willingness to deliver on DOGE and the Trump agenda.' Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting. 'Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,' the Maine lawmaker said in a statement. Why does the administration need Congress' approval? The White House's request to return appropriated funds is meant to comply with the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. That law created the process by which the president can formally disclose to Congress the appropriated money it intends to not spend. Congress generally has 45 days to review and approve the request, but Vought is arguing that the end of the fiscal year would enable the administration to bypass a vote. The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog group, said in a 2018 backgrounder that the Senate can pass rescission packages with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes needed to overcome a possible filibuster. Between 1974 and 2000, presidents requested $76 billion worth of rescissions and Congress approved $25 billion. Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said in an emailed statement that the Trump administration was already 'illegally impounding additional funds,' as withholding money has 'always been illegal without explicit Congressional approval.' On CNN on Sunday, Vought insisted that the Trump administration was complying with the law, but it simply had a different view of the law relative to some Democrats. 'We're not breaking the law,' Vought said. 'Every part of the federal government, each branch, has to look at the Constitution themselves and uphold it, and there's tension between the branches.'
