Russell Vought’s likely confirmation to be President Donald Trump’s White House budget chief is stoking fears among Democrats and other observers that the administration will disregard federal spending laws and throw a wrench into Congress’ efforts to reach a funding deal.
They say the White House Office of Management and Budget’s since-withdrawn memo to pause the disbursement of a wide range of grants and loans — an effort supported by Vought — could wreak havoc on government-funded programs across the country, such as clean energy loans and drinking water infrastructure grants, while derailing already contentious negotiations on government funding.
“Over the last few days, the American people have felt the painful consequences of Trump’s disastrous funding freeze,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the ranking member on Appropriations, said in a floor speech Thursday.
She cited “resources that are already creating thousands of good-paying new clean energy jobs in every state in the country,” among a host of other projects.
Earlier this week she connected the administration’s actions to annual spending talks. “It is extremely difficult to agree to a compromise on anything if the White House is going to assert that they control the funds [and] we don’t,” she said. “So this is really putting that in jeopardy.”
The Republican chair of the committee, Susan Collins of Maine called the administration’s move “far too sweeping,” though most Republicans have been sanguine about Trump’s maneuvers.
The brouhaha began Monday, when OMB issued a memo instructing agencies to freeze a wide range of funding coming from grants, loans and other assistance, though it carved out individual assistance programs such as Social Security and Medicare. The memo caused confusion for lawmakers, organizations, states and others.
Before it could take effect, the freeze was blocked Tuesday by a federal judge in Washington. The OMB rescinded the memo Wednesday, but the White House said the pause was still in place. A Rhode Island federal judge said Wednesday he would stop the underlying funding freeze from being enforced.
But many energy and climate change programs are still under a separate payment halt. Trump last week signed an executive order blocking a broad array of money related to the bipartisan infrastructure law and the Inflation Reduction Act from going out the door, and this week’s actions do not appear to change that. The White House did not return a request for comment seeking clarification.
In her floor speech Thursday, Murray called on Trump to withdraw that executive order and unfreeze the rest of the money. She also called on him to withdraw Vought’s nomination. None of that is likely to happen. A procedural vote on Vought is set for Monday.
Through all this, House and Senate Appropriations leaders recently restarted negotiations on a fiscal 2025 spending top line after months of stagnation. They are hoping to strike a bipartisan deal with less than two months to go before the March 14 funding deadline.
But the idea that Vought and Trump could decide to sidestep Congress’ spending authority, imposing their will on which funds get spent and which don’t, could undermine the very basis of those bipartisan deals and render the ongoing negotiations effectively meaningless.
Capitol Hill watchers say such intervention from the executive branch could have sweeping repercussions for the separation of powers and lawmakers’ role in determining how taxpayer dollars get allocated.
Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the liberal Center for American Progress, argued that even without considering the Impoundment Control Act, Congress has inherent power to mandate spending, arguing Vought’s position is extreme.
“It’s a really, really radical thing,” he said. “Saying Congress can’t pass appropriations laws that are binding is just crazy.”
The Senate Budget Committee voted Thursday to advance Vought’s nomination; all 11 Republicans voted for him, but the Democrats refused even to attend the meeting. The Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee last week voted for Vought along party lines.
Constitutional crisis?
At the core of the spending controversy is a dispute likely to play out throughout Trump’s time in office: whether the president can refuse to spend money for programs he doesn’t like. It could hold huge implications for energy, as he is vehemently opposed to both the infrastructure law and the IRA, former President Joe Biden’s massive climate law.
Trump and his aides have argued that he has an inherent constitutional authority to block spending, but Democrats — and the law — say otherwise. The issue is already being labeled a “constitutional crisis” by Trump’s opponents.
“Make no mistake, this is all part of an effort to drive the impoundment crisis, as you may call it … all the way to the Supreme Court,” Mike Catanzaro, who was Trump’s top energy adviser in 2017 and 2018, said at an event this week. “There is no doubt about that’s where they’re going.”
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 allows the executive branch to hold off on spending money in just a limited set of circumstances, and OMB would have to notify Congress if it’s using that authority, which it has not done.
Trump got in trouble in his first presidential term for impounding funds. The Government Accountability Office found in 2017 that the Energy Department illegally withheld $91 million for the Advanced Research Projects Agency–Energy, and the agency relented.
He later held back $400 million in military aid for Ukraine, which led to his first impeachment.
Trump and Vought have argued that the president has inherent authority to spend less than Congress told him to, and laws like ICA stating otherwise are a “usurpation” of that power.
“The president ran against the Impoundment Control Act,” Vought told Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) at his confirmation hearing in the Senate Budget Committee last week after Van Hollen pushed him, unsuccessfully, to commit to abiding by the law.
GOP shrugs
Congressional Republicans — including appropriators — are rallying behind Trump and Vought’s push to dominate federal spending, describing it simply as a way for the administration to better implement its agenda.
Many have minimized the legal and constitutional issues at hand and rejected the notion that it could undermine efforts to secure an agreement on government funding.
“I’m not a lawyer, I can’t pontificate on what’s legal, but I suspect what’s happening is what most Republicans would be supportive of,” Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla.), the House Appropriations chair, told CNN. “Appropriations is not a law, it’s the directive of Congress.”
Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.), a senior appropriator, said, “Some folks want to get into the Impoundment Act and ‘Did you get 30 days notice?’ Frankly, those are process issues. And while it’s an interesting discussion … I’m more interested in the policy.”
Another appropriator, Sen. John Hoeven (R-N.D.), chair of the Agriculture funding panel, said he thinks the fiscal 2025 appropriations process and Republicans’ parallel planning on budget reconciliation will ultimately determine which funds get spent and which don’t — not the Trump administration.
“Just because [funding] gets paused doesn’t mean it won’t get funded, and hopefully the ones that are funded are funded in a better way, more in line with our priorities in terms of how the executive branch carries it out,” Hoeven said.
Kennedy also said he doesn’t believe the administration’s potential efforts to impound funds will impact the appropriations process. He suggested that the recent commotion over OMB’s actions and Vought’s spending philosophy is little more than political messaging by Democrats who feel powerless in the minority.
“The only reason it’s become an issue is because my Democratic friends don’t have anything else to criticize,” Kennedy said. “They’re on their back foot, they’re floundering. They lost the election, and they can’t get a toehold on how to go with President Trump.”
“About 90 percent of this stuff is just political bullshit,” he said.
The dispute is likely to play out in federal court, and could eventually reach the Supreme Court, where six of the nine justices were appointed by Republican presidents.
