White House looks to freeze more agency funds — and expand executive power
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, people familiar with the strategy told POLITICO's E&E News.
The strategy: order agencies to freeze the spending now — then ask Congress' approval, using a maneuver that allows the cuts to become permanent if lawmakers fail to act.
The move would ax billions of dollars beyond the $9.4 billion in White House-requested cuts, known as 'rescissions,' that the House approved Thursday. The Office of Management and Budget late last week directed several agencies to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to agency emails and two people familiar with the plan.
The architect of the freeze directive, OMB Director Russ Vought, has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — first reported by E&E News — appears designed to test those boundaries.
The agencies targeted by the newest freeze include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services. E&E News granted anonymity to the two people familiar with the strategy 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 that 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.
Freezing the spending before making that request seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power and the 1974 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, they described it 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, said one person in the administration with direct knowledge of the strategy. The person said the White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail.
Vought has said repeatedly he disagrees with the impoundment act, a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Democrats and legal scholars have said Trump already has violated the law.
'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN in an interview on June 1.
The separate $9.4 billion rescissions package that the House approved Thursday would 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 Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. If the president introduces a recissions package then, Congress has a 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 both chambers of Congress, the administration person said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered on Labor Department spending.
The deferrals package is a third 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 Monday. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.'
The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the person 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 object, said another person at an agency that would be affected.
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 book "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 official 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 last 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 offices relying on previous-year funding could see their "programs gutted." The official 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.
He said 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.
'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.
Federal spending decisions are 'a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions,' he added. 'And this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
Hashtags

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

Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Lori Falce: Los Angeles confrontations are becoming less about immigration than First Amendment
Jun. 13—The United States of America had barely taken its first breath as a nation governed by the Constitution when it was realized that changes were needed. While we will celebrate Independence Day on July 4 as the country's 249th birthday, that's a bit wrong. That was the day we declared ourselves separate from the British crown. It was 1789 when we became a functioning nation. That same year, James Madison began spelling out the finer points that had been missed in the broad strokes of the Constitution. It took two years to work through the process of making the changes. But finally, in 1791, the Bill of Rights became law. And while nine of them are truly rights, the First Amendment is a list of freedoms. In America, people have the right to religion, press, assembly, petition — all of which can be boiled down to an overarching banner of speech. It is obvious why this was so important to Madison and the other leaders of the fledgling nation. They used speech and assembly, petition and the press to conceive an idea of America, to give it life and to nurture it in its infancy. How would those founding fathers feel today? The National Guard has been sent into Los Angeles to quell protests over President Donald Trump's immigration enforcement. U.S. Marines have been mobilized. It comes over the objection of Gov. Gavin Newsom and local leaders. When U.S. Sen. Alex Padilla, D-Calif., tried to ask questions at a news conference Thursday with Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, he was forcibly removed and handcuffed. "We declare that due process and human dignity and respect are nonnegotiables, and we will not allow this administration to normalize cruelty or silence our resistance," the Rev. Jaime Edwards-Acton of St. Stephen's Episcopal Church in Hollywood told the National Catholic Reporter. Journalists covering the protests and response have been injured in a way more in keeping with covering a war overseas. "A number of reports suggest the federal officers have indiscriminately used force or deployed munitions such as tear gas or pepper balls that caused significant injuries to journalists. In some cases, federal officers appear to have deliberately targeted journalists who were doing nothing more than their job covering the news," the Los Angeles Press Club wrote in a letter to Noem. The federal actions do the very first thing our leaders worried would happen if guidelines were not firmly established. They run roughshod over not only rights enshrined in the Constitution but every single freedom established in the First Amendment. It is important to remember that there is no protection for committing crime. Exercising a right to peaceable assembly is not the same as rioting. One cannot petition for redress of grievances by setting fire to a car. But by the same token, the federal government cannot protect the nation from its people by setting fire to the First Amendment. Lori Falce is the Tribune-Review community engagement editor and an opinion columnist. For more than 30 years, she has covered Pennsylvania politics, Penn State, crime and communities. She joined the Trib in 2018. She can be reached at lfalce@
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Iran launches missiles, drones at Israel as Israel attacks Iran's nuclear sites
Warning sirens sounded across Israel on Friday and a military official told CBS News that dozens of Iranian ballistic missiles were en route to Israel. The country's population had been instructed to remain in bomb shelters until further notice. The apparent retaliatory action from Iran came after Israel has launched over 200 airstrikes on Iran — continuing a major operation that began overnight, Israel Defense Forces spokesman Brigadier General Effie Defrin said Friday. Israel's airstrikes are continuing, Defrin said. Israel first launched airstrikes on Iran early Friday and announced its operation was targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, scientists and senior military commanders. Tehran responded by launching more than 100 drones at Israel on Friday morning, Israel's military said. Defrin said earlier Friday that Israel's air defenses had worked to "intercept the threats." Later Friday, an Israeli military official told reporters that while the threat wasn't over, Israel had managed to intercept many of Iran's UAVs. "Throughout the day, we once again demonstrated our ability to remove threats in a coordinated, precise and daring manner," Defrin said Friday night. In a televised statement on Friday, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said the Iranian Armed Forces would respond fiercely to the strikes and leave Israel "helpless." Shortly after the statement, the IDF confirmed that its fighter jets had "completed a strike on the Iranian regime's nuclear site in the Isfahan area." Ishafan is in central Iran. The strike "dismantled a facility for producing metallic uranium, infrastructure for reconverting enriched uranium, laboratories, and additional infrastructure," the IDF said. The U.S. was not involved in Israel's strikes, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said, adding a warning that "Iran should not target U.S. interests or personnel." President Trump said in a post Friday morning on his Truth Social media platform that he had given Iran "chance after chance" to make a deal with the U.S. on its nuclear program, but that despite his warnings to Tehran that the alternative would be "much worse" than anything seen before, "they just couldn't get it done." "There has already been great death and destruction, but there is still time to make this slaughter, with the next already planned attacks being even more brutal, come to an end," Mr. Trump said. "Iran must make a deal, before there is nothing left." In a later post on Friday, Mr. Trump said he "gave Iran a 60 day ultimatum to 'make a deal.' They should have done it! Today is day 61. I told them what to do, but they just couldn't get there. Now they have, perhaps, a second chance!" Israel has intercepted virtually every Iranian weapon launched in previous large-scale attacks by the Islamic republic. The retaliatory action by Iran was long anticipated and well planned for, Defrin said. Iran's President Mahsoud Pezeshkian said Friday on Iranian TV that the country would "strongly take action" against Israel in response to the attacks, promising "a severe, wise and strong answer." "The Iranian nation and the country's officials will not remain silent in the face of this crime, and the legitimate and powerful response of the Islamic Republic of Iran will make the enemy regret its foolish act," he said. Israel says it destroyed Iran's air defenses, killed top commanders Earlier Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu announced that the IDF had begun "Operation Rising Lion," with a massive wave of airstrikes against dozens of Iranian nuclear sites, military commanders and research scientists, saying the goal was to "roll back the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival." Like Netanyahu, Defrin, the IDF spokesman, called the attack on Iran preemptive in a video statement delivered Friday, saying Israeli intelligence had uncovered an Iranian "plan to destroy Israel that has taken shape in recent years." He said that plan involved Iran "racing towards a nuclear bomb," working to double or triple its ballistic missile stockpile, and continuing to "finance, arm, and operate its proxies throughout the Middle East against the State of Israel." "I can confirm that the senior security leadership of the Iranian regime has been eliminated in the strike: the Iranian Chief of Staff, [Mohammad] Bagheri; the Commander of the Revolutionary Guards, [Hossein] Salami; and the Head of the Emergency Command, [Gholamali] Rashid," Defrin said, adding that other commanders had been killed and that Israeli would provide further updates. He said Israel had "targeted and struck the Iranian regime's aerial defense arrays." The IDF said its operation would continue for days, but that the first wave consisted of 200 Israeli fighter jets dropping "over 330 different munitions," to hit more than 100 targets in Iran. "The breadth and scale of these strikes — against senior Iranian officials and other military facilities in addition to nuclear sites — suggest this operation is intended to not just dissuade Iran from pursuing nuclear weapons, but also cripple any potential military response and even to destabilize the regime," Matthew Savill, Director of Military Sciences at the Royal United Services Institute, a British military think tank, said in a statement. "Israel has once again demonstrated its considerable conventional military superiority, and the size of the force allegedly assembled for this series of attacks represents the overwhelming bulk of their longer-range strike aircraft. They have the ability to conduct multiple such rounds of strikes, but operating for an extended duration over this considerable range will stretch even the Israeli Air Force." Savill said Iran's response "might be delayed or split into multiple phases, but their main weapon will be ballistic missiles, which have the best chance of inflicting damage on Israel, whereas drone and cruise missile attacks will face more extensive Israeli defenses. Israel operations have therefore targeted air defenses and ballistic missile sites to forestall this." Savill said that if Iran "believes the U.S. or others were involved" in the Israeli strike, then their retaliation could include targeting the U.S. Navy's Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain, and American air facilities in Qatar, "though both would widen the conflict to drag in others." NATO chief urges de-escalation, says nuclear clash "not close" Iranian state media said the Israeli strikes had hit several cities, including in the capital of Tehran and the city of Natanz, a key center for Iran's uranium enrichment program. The IDF said it struck Iran's uranium enrichment site in the Natanz area. "The underground area of the site was damaged," the IDF said in a statement. "This area contains a multi-story enrichment hall with centrifuges, electrical rooms, and additional supporting infrastructure. In addition, critical infrastructure enabling the site's continuous operation and the Iranian regime's ongoing efforts to obtain nuclear weapons were targeted." The United Nations' nuclear watchdog agency, the IAEA, said in a series of social media posts that its Director General, Rafael Grossi, had been in contact with Iranian authorities on Friday, who told him the country's highly-sensitive and highly-secured Fordo nuclear site "has not been impacted" by the Israeli strikes. Later Friday, Reuters reported that two explosions had been heard near the site and that state media said Iranian air defenses had shot down an Israeli drone near the facility. The IAEA also said Iran's "Bushehr Nuclear Power Plant had not been targeted and that no increase in radiation levels has been observed at the Natanz site." On Friday, during a visit to Sweden, NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte told reporters that "this was a unilateral action by Israel. So I think it is crucial for many allies, including the United States, to work as we speak to de-escalate." Despite the ongoing attacks, Rutte said he believed the region was "not close" to a possible nuclear conflict. While there have been no claims that Iran has yet built a nuclear weapon, Israel is believed to have multiple warheads, though it has never formally confirmed nor denied its status as a nuclear-armed nation. Iranian officials quickly threatened retaliation to the attack, with Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei saying Israel "should await a harsh response." The IDF said in a statement before Iran's retaliatory strikes that it had prepared for "a campaign on the frontline and on the home front." Netanyahu said Israel's strikes against Iran, "will continue for as many days as it takes to remove this threat." Shortly after Israel's strikes, the U.S. Embassy in Israel ordered American personnel to shelter in place. A day beforehand, the Trump administration ordered non-emergency U.S. personnel to leave Iraq and allowed U.S. military family members to leave the Middle East voluntarily. Risk of an escalating regional conflict Israel has carried out strikes against Iranian proxies in recent years, while Iran has backed foes of Israel, including the militant group Hamas. In April of last year, Iran launched missiles and drones at Israel after a strike on Iran's consulate in Damascus was widely attributed to Israel, but the Israeli military intercepted the vast majority of the weapons. Six months later, Iran launched more missiles at Israel, which retaliated with strikes on Iranian sites. Friday's back-and-forth could escalate to be among the most severe clashes between Israel and Iran, which have been adversaries for decades. Mr. Trump warned earlier in the week that the strikes could snowball into a "massive" conflict. Farea Al-Muslimi, a research fellow at the Chatham House think tank, said in a statement Friday that the Iran-backed Houthis in Yemen could play a role in the Iranian response to Israel. "With Iran currently weakened and humiliated, this marks the first time the Houthis will be called upon to repay decades of Iranian investment and support," Al-Muslimi predicted. "Following the killing of Hassan Nasrallah in Lebanon and the collapse of the Assad regime in Syria, the Houthis have effectively become Iran's first line of defense against Israel — an increasingly central role." Al-Muslimi said the Houthi response could extend beyond retaliatory strikes on Israel itself. "Strikes in the Red Sea will likely resume, the ceasefire with the United States may unravel, and we shouldn't be surprised if Saudi Arabia and the UAE are dragged back into direct conflict in Yemen," Al-Muslimi said. "Attacks by the Houthis on U.S. military bases in the Gulf, the Horn of Africa, and naval forces at sea are also highly plausible." Fabian Hinz, an air warfare expert at London's International Institute of Strategic Studies, told the Associated Press that Iran's current capabilities are potentially "more threatening to the U.S. military than to Israel." Iran has a "huge arsenal" of shorter-range missiles, Hinz said, and there are a number of U.S. military bases in the region. He said Iran also has "lots of anti-ship capabilities." "Think of the Iranian shipping threat as similar in quality to the Houthi threat, but much larger in quantity," Hinz told the AP. Israeli attack casts doubt on fate of U.S.-Iran nuclear talks The Israeli strikes and Iranian counterattack came amid efforts by President Trump to strike a new deal with Iran to limit the country's nuclear ambitions — an idea Israel has long been dubious of. The U.S. and Iran were set to hold talks Sunday, multiple U.S. officials told CBS News. There was no immediate comment from any high-ranking Iranian officials that those plans would change after Israel's attack, but some reports in Iranian media outlets indicated Iran would likely no longer participate in the negotiations. "With Israel's actions, the sixth round of negotiations with the United States will probably not be held," Iranian lawmaker Aladdin Boroujerdi, a member of parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Commission, said, according to Iranian media. Michal Ben-Gal, Seyed Bathaei, Jennifer Jacobs and Olivia Gazis contributed to this report. Video shows Air India plane crashing in Ahmedabad Air India plane crashes shortly after takeoff, carrying more than 240 people Remembering the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Appeals court deals Trump blow in challenge to E Jean Carroll verdict
An appellate court in New York on Friday rejected President Donald Trump's bid to toss out a jury's verdict that the president sexually abused and defamed former Elle columnist E. Jean Carroll. The full panel of judges for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit declined to hear Trump's arguments, leaving Trump the option to turn to the Supreme Court as the last form of relief in a yearslong case that stemmed from Carroll's shocking claim in 2019 that Trump raped her in a dressing room three decades ago. In his appeal, Trump challenged evidence that Carroll's legal team introduced to the jury during the civil lawsuit, including the Access Hollywood tape that surfaced during Trump's 2016 campaign. Us Appeals Court Upholds Trump Verdict In E Jean Carroll Case Two Trump-appointed judges on the appellate court dissented and said they would have granted Trump's request and reconsidered the verdict. The pair of judges said the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump lewdly spoke about making passes at women, did not offer relevant context in relation to Carroll's claims. The tape functioned as "propensity evidence," which is typically inadmissible in court, the judges said. Read On The Fox News App "If the panel opinion remains a precedent of our court, a future plaintiff or the government will be able to introduce evidence of prior conduct in which a defendant went on a mundane outing and sometime thereafter made a sexual advance," they wrote in their dissent. Trump Scores 'Unequivocal Victory' Against Pulitzer Prize Board Members, Court Denies Request To Dismiss Suit Carroll sued Trump, a one-time New York real estate mogul, twice after she released her book in 2019, which claimed Trump raped her during a brief encounter with him in a department store dressing room in the 1990s. Trump vigorously denied the claims, saying he had never met Carroll, that she was not his "type" and that she fabricated the incident to sell books. His vocal and repeated criticisms and denials led to Carroll's defamation allegations. The appellate court's decision on Friday relates to a lawsuit Carroll brought in 2022, in which a jury found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation and awarded Carroll $5 million. The jury also found Trump did not rape Carroll, as Carroll had alleged. Carroll brought a second lawsuit right after her book release, alleging Trump defamed her in the aftermath of the book being published. A jury in that lawsuit awarded Carroll $83 million. Trump is also appealing that article source: Appeals court deals Trump blow in challenge to E Jean Carroll verdict