With the House expected to eagerly place another rubber stamp on a legislative priority of President Trump’s — his attempt, via a rescission package, to legitimize Elon Musk’s work of freezing and blocking federal spending earlier this year — the White House has learned that it is not that hard to bully congressional Republicans into letting the executive branch do their job for them.
White House budget chief Russ Vought told reporters on Thursday, before the House vote, that he may soon send over another rescission package to claw back more federal funding that had previously been authorized by Congress.
“We are willing to send up additional rescissions. I think if this continues to pass, we’re likely to send up another rescissions package that would come soon, and we’ll be working on that to try to get that across the finish line,” Vought said at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday. He then suggested that this is a process the Trump administration prefers, as it helps Trump show “you have the executive branch ensuring that it’s not cowing to a legislative branch’s understanding of its own authorities and powers.”
While it is a constitutionally backwards approach to how Congress is meant to allocate spending, rescissions bills are at least a legal venue for the executive branch to flex power over what is meant to be a co-equal branch of government. Vought’s plan to attempt to enact so-called pocket rescissions this year — just not spending money that Congress has authorized until the fiscal year ends in September — is a legally dubious move that many believe will set up a high stakes legal battle over the separation of powers. The maneuver — which Vought has repeatedly mused about publicly — is a threat to Congress: Pass our rescission bills, or we’ll use the loop hole we think we’ve found to sidestep you entirely.
In acknowledging that the White House intends to try to force Congress to choke down more of its Department of Government Efficiency cuts, Vought is revealing how comfortable it is asking Republicans to cede their authority as a check on Trump.
At the same time, some Republicans are finally conceding they’re not totally comfortable with what the White House is doing — while, in most cases, stopping short of taking a stand.
Ahead of the Senate vote on the $9 billion rescission package Thursday morning, Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS) said in a speech on the Senate floor that he was going to vote for the measure “with reservation.” He pointed specifically to concerns about the legislative branch becoming too submissive to the executive branch — especially in the face of objections vocalized by several Senate Republicans who said they did not know what the bill they were about to vote on would cut. (Many of them nonetheless voted for it.)
Despite multiple requests from members of the Senate GOP, Vought refused to provide clarity on where exactly the cuts will come from. Most ultimately voted for the measure regardless.
“It concerns me — as perhaps approaching a disregard for the constitutional responsibilities of the legislative branch under Article I,” Wicker said. “Congress has the power of the purse. The president has the power to enforce. In this situation, there’s a specific amount stated that will be rescinded. … But this Congress will not be allowed to choose those specific cuts. That will be done by somebody in the Office of Management and Budget in the White House. And in this situation it will amount to the House and Senate basically saying: We concede that decision voluntarily to the executive branch.”
“So I have expressed concern about this,” Wicker said.
Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY) expressed similar concerns and said that it was what led him to vote “no” on motion to open debate on the bill earlier this week. He, like Wicker, ultimately supported the measure.
Vought is taking cues from the Senate Republicans who folded for the sake of showing their commitment to reducing federal spending.
“It is past time that Republicans stand up for Congress as a co-equal branch of government,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-WA) said.
If You’re Still Reading …
I often invoke the nightmare that is this political moment when asking you, TPM readers and new Where Things Stand subscribers, to keep coming back to read my evening briefing. That is, in part, because I know what a sacrifice it is to pay attention to the news right now. The headlines are more distressing than ever and it is an increasingly heavy burden to ask people to keep up. That is part of the reason that TPM offers reporting like what you find in Where Things Stand and in our sister newsletter, Morning Memo. Seven months in, Trump II has been A Lot and you shouldn’t be expected to follow every minute detail or understand the full scope of the years-in-the-making context behind any new, devastating Trump administration decision.
If you enjoy reading WTS every night — or even if you begrudgingly stomach it in order to help yourself stay informed — I’d like to ask you to support TPM in another way, besides reading all the high quality journalism we produce on a day to day basis. Not only do we try to keep up with all the horrors so you don’t have to, we also are one of the few remaining truly independent digital news outlets in an increasingly scary time to do this kind of work. And we’ve been around for 25 years! It’s our 25th anniversary of existence this fall and I, your faithful evening briefing author, have been around for about eight and a half of those years.
One thing I love about working at TPM is the fact that a lot of us have been doing this work together for a very long time. And TPM has long played a unique role in the American media ecosystem, observing that politics were drifting in a Trump-y direction long before most news outlets did.
If you enjoy reading TPM, and the frame of reference we provide to explain this insane moment in American history, would you consider contributing to the TPM Journalism Fund? We are currently hosting a drive to raise $500,000, which will help us remain independent — aka not have millionaire or billionaire investors to answer to — and continue doing good journalism. We’re already halfway to our goal.
If that’s not for you, another way you can support TPM is by becoming a member. Right now, we’re doing a really big sale where you can become a member for just $25.
Fin ❤️
Ominous Even For Rubio
Secretary of State Marco Rubio has reportedly sent guidance to diplomats revising how the State Department recognizes democratic ideals abroad, in a move that has experts concerned about the message it might signal to countries dealing with authoritarian leaders. Per WaPo:
The United States should no longer publicly comment on elections, including making an assessment of whether the election was “free and fair,” unless there is a “clear and compelling U.S. foreign policy interest to do so,” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said in a cable to diplomats sent on Thursday.
When there are messages about elections, they should “avoid opining on the fairness or integrity of an electoral process, its legitimacy, or the democratic values of the country in question,” Rubio wrote in the cable, which was first reported on by the Daily Signal.
In Case You Missed It
Emil Bove Represents One Future of the Federal Judiciary
The Trump Administration’s Absurd Obsession With Secrecy
Noem Settles It: Trump Admin Will Sacrifice Agriculture at Altar of Mass Deportations
Yesterday’s Most Read Story
What We Are Reading
Trump administration shuts down LGBTQ youth suicide hotline
Looming Epstein vote has Republicans eager to leave Washington
Maurene Comey warns her former colleagues: ‘Fear is the tool of the tyrant’
Source link