Vought says Trump may not need Congress's approval to cut federal workforce
Russell Vought, the director of the office of management and budget (OMB), on Sunday cast doubt on the constitutional obligation of the White House to ask Congress to sign off on Donald Trump's massive cuts to the federal workforce spearheaded by Elon Musk.
Vought indicated the White House preferred to rely on 'executive tools' for all but a 'necessary' fraction of the cuts instead of submitting the whole package of jobs and agency slashing that took place via the so-called 'department of government efficiency' (Doge), to the congressional branch for its official approval.
The White House budget director, in an interview with CNN on Sunday, also defended the widespread future cost-cutting proposed by the US president's One Big Beautiful Bill act that was passed by the House last week, which covers budget proposals for the next fiscal year starting in October.
Related: US budget chief calls fears that cuts to benefits will lead to deaths 'totally ridiculous'
But, as Dana Bash, CNN's State of the Union host, pointed out, Doge cut 'funding and programs that Congress already passed'. And while those cuts, cited by the departing Musk as being worth $175bn, are tiny compared with the trillion or more he forecast, Vought said OMB was only going to submit about $9.4bn to Congress this week for sign-off. That amount is understood to mostly cover the crushing of the USAID agency and cuts to public broadcasting, which have prompted outrage and lawsuits.
Leaders of Congress from both parties have pressed for the Trump administration to send details of all the cuts for its approval. 'Will you?' Bash asked Vought.
'We might,' Vought said, adding that the rest of the Doge cuts may not need official congressional approval.
As one of the architects of Project 2025, the rightwing initiative created to guide the second Trump administration, Vought is on a quest to dismantle the federal workforce and consolidate power for the US president, and to continue the Doge cuts.
Vought said that one of the executive tools the administration has is the use of 'impoundment', which involves the White House withholding specific funds allocated by Congress. Since the 1970s, a law has limited the presidency from engaging in impoundment – typically requiring the executive branch to implement what Congress signed into law.
Bash said: 'I know you don't believe that that is constitutional, so are you just doing this in order to get the supreme court to rule that unconstitutional?'
Related: Stakes are high for US democracy as conservative supreme court hears raft of cases
Vought said: 'We are not in love with the law.' But he also said, in response to criticism from some on Capitol Hill: 'We're not breaking the law.'
Meanwhile, on the Big Beautiful bill, the Congressional budget office (CBO) and many experts say it could swell the US deficit by $3.8tn, and business tycoon Musk said it 'undermines the work the Doge team is doing'.
Vought disagreed. 'I love Elon, [but] this bill doesn't increase the deficit or hurt the debt,' he said.
Vought – and later on Sunday, the House speaker Mike Johnson on NBC – argued that critics' calculations don't fully account for extending the 2017 Trump tax cuts and slashing regulation.
Vought also chipped in that Trump is 'the architect, the visionary, the originator of his own agenda', rather than the Heritage Foundation's blueprint for the administration, Project 2025, although he did not deny that the two have dovetailed.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

40 minutes ago
Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE
WASHINGTON -- 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: 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. 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. 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. 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.'


Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
Today in History: June 4, the Tiananmen Square Massacre
Advertisement In 1919, Congress approved the 19th Amendment to the US Constitution, which said that the right of Americans to vote 'shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.' (The amendment was then sent to the states for ratification.) In 1940, during World War II, the Allied military completed the evacuation of more than 338,000 troops from Dunkirk, France. Also in 1940, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill declared in a speech to the House of Commons: 'We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.' In 1942, the World War II naval Battle of Midway began, which resulted in a decisive American victory against Japan and marked a turning point in the war in the Pacific. Advertisement In 1986, Jonathan Jay Pollard, a former US Navy intelligence analyst, pleaded guilty in Washington to conspiring to deliver national defense information to Israel. (Sentenced to life in prison, Pollard would be released on parole in November 2015.) In 1989, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of pro-democracy demonstrators and dozens of soldiers are estimated to have been killed when Chinese troops crushed a seven-week-long protest held by occupying demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square. In 1990, Dr. Jack Kevorkian carried out his first publicly assisted suicide, helping Janet Adkins, a 54-year-old Alzheimer's patient from Portland, Ore., end her life in Oakland County, Mich. In 1998, a federal judge sentenced Terry Nichols to life in prison without parole for his role in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, which killed 168 people.


USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Musk calls Trump's bill an 'abomination.' I hate it when our two weird dads fight.
Musk calls Trump's bill an 'abomination.' I hate it when our two weird dads fight. | Opinion Pairing two loony, conspiratorial billionaires like Donald Trump and Elon Musk never seemed likely to end well, especially since each has a severe allergy to the truth. Show Caption Hide Caption Elon Musk slams Trump's big tax bill on X Days after leaving the White House, Elon Musk slammed President Trump's big tax bill on X. Oh dear, America. It looks like we're about to witness a big, ol' raging-narcissist billionaire fight. Noted uber-rich-nuisance Elon Musk appears to have turned on his MAGA BFF President Donald Trump, declaring the president's absurdly named One Big Beautiful Bill Act, under consideration in the U.S. Senate, 'a disgusting abomination.' What the heck, Elon? Which part of 'Big' and 'Beautiful' do you not understand? 'The Disgusting Abomination Bill' is something Democrats would call it if they were clever enough to come up with a name like that and bold enough to use it. 'I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk whined about Trump's bill The builder of ugly electric trucks and rockets that go boom when they're not supposed to posted on X, 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore. This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' He also posted: 'In November next year, we fire all politicians who betrayed the American people.' I HATE IT WHEN OUR WEIRD, SUPER RICH DADS FIGHT! Opinion: A letter to sad Elon Musk, from America ‒ 'Hey pal, sorry everybody was mean.' We all knew the Musk/MAGA breakup was coming Pairing two loony, conspiratorial billionaires like Trump and Musk never seemed likely to end well, especially because each has a severe allergy to the truth. After Musk bought Trump his second presidency and then, via destructive slash-and-burn work with the U.S. Department of Government Efficiency, turned his Tesla car brand toxic, it was clear he wanted to step away from politics and get back to failing at other things. But the recent 'Elon's leaving DOGE' fanfare seemed a bit like a divorce the White House was trying to sugarcoat. Then, on June 3, Musk had the audacity to call Trump's screw-the-poor, help-the-rich big, beautiful bologna bill disgusting. Opinion: Democrats want a liberal Joe Rogan to help them win elections. I'm right here. 'Elon is terribly wrong' That prompted GOP House Speaker Mike Johnson to say: 'With all due respect, my friend Elon is terribly wrong about the One Big Beautiful Bill.' While it's hard to take someone seriously when they, as an actual adult person, use the words 'One Big Beautiful Bill,' Johnson's clearly teeing his party up to pick a side, and Musk isn't going to like the side that gets picked. Musk's foray into politics may have shown him that politicians are bad With his billions and his ego and the many yes-people around him, Musk probably assumed he could bend politics to his will. He barnstormed through federal agencies, making an absolute mess of things while overpromising and underdelivering, just as he's done with Tesla and SpaceX. He also helped himself out on the federal contracts front, likely bringing billions of dollars to his own companies. But when it comes to tax breaks for billionaires and getting rid of things right-wingers don't like, like tax credits for electric vehicles!, Musk is no match for House Republicans. Their bill will spike the deficit. Musk and Trump are prime examples of why we shouldn't have billionaires And now it appears that Musk will complain loudly about the bill and possibly continue to threaten to go after the Republican lawmakers who vote for it. Trump, depending on which side of his bread he wants buttered, might lash back at Musk, giving Americans a front-row seat to a good old-fashioned stupid-off. And so it goes. Rich people are going to claim they did great things and then fight over whose thing is greater than the other guy's thing. It's typical. The rest of us will be left wondering, for the 10 billionth time, why people with this much damn money can't just be happy and shut up. Follow USA TODAY columnist Rex Huppke on Bluesky at @ and on Facebook at