On Tuesday, the White House formally requested Congress to retract $9.4 billion in previously approved spending, marking an effort to eliminate funding from programs identified by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency. This procedure, known as “rescission,” needs Congress’s confirmation to return funds that were previously agreed upon. Supporters of the move within Trump’s administration assert that the cuts are directed at programs that they believe support liberal ideologies.
Should this request receive approval from both the House and Senate, it would formalize many of the spending cuts and freezes that the Department of Government Efficiency seeks. This proposal comes amid Musk’s criticism of the existing tax and spending plans progressing through Congress, which he derogatorily described as a “disgusting abomination” due to its potential impact on the federal deficit.
Russ Vought, the White House budget director, hinted at the possibility of more rescission proposals and other budget-cutting strategies if the current proposition is successful. “We are certainly willing and able to send up additional packages if the congressional will is there,” Vought conveyed to the press.
Addressing whether these rescissions will significantly affect the national debt, the proposal is unlikely to make a substantial dent in the expanding U.S. national debt crisis. Current tax revenues fail to meet the mounting expenses associated with Social Security, Medicare, and other government programs. Projections by the Congressional Budget Office suggest that federal spending will approximate $7 trillion for the year, while the rescission request represents just 0.1% of that amount.
Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, emphasized Vought’s reputation as a “well-respected fiscal hawk” and suggested further possibilities for cost-saving measures. Vought indicated the potential to propose more rescissions by the fiscal year’s end in September, although if Congress doesn’t act, the funding would expire naturally. “It’s one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,” he added.
Programs potentially facing funding cuts include significant portions of the budget for the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, totaling $8.3 billion. Funding for NPR, PBS, and the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) would also be affected. There are specific programs placed under scrutiny by the Trump administration, such as funds allocated for combating xenophobia in Venezuela, providing insect protein to children in Madagascar, and reproductive health initiatives in Zambia.
The prospects for the rescission package’s approval are receiving mixed reactions. House Speaker Mike Johnson expressed support for the cuts and committed to advancing them swiftly. Meanwhile, the conservative House Freedom Caucus stated a desire for further rescissions from the White House, articulating their willingness to back more proposals in the future. Conversely, the reception from Senate Appropriations Committee chair Senator Susan Collins was less enthusiastic. She voiced a need for a thorough examination of the rescissions’ implications on matters such as global health, national security, and the operation of public media outlets.
Congressional approval is mandated for these measures under the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. The law stipulates procedures for the president to disclose funds that they don’t intend to spend, requiring congressional review and approval within 45 days. However, Russ Vought argued that the end of the fiscal year could offer a means to bypass a vote. Historically, from 1974 to 2000, presidents requested $76 billion in rescissions, with $25 billion gaining approval by Congress.
There is debate surrounding the legality of these actions, with some alleging that the administration is “illegally impounding funds” without congressional consent. However, Vought defended the administration’s actions, stating compliance with the law, while acknowledging differences in interpretation among political parties.