During a recent appearance on State of the Union, Russ Vought, President Trump’s former Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and a principal architect of his budget strategy, took aim at the mainstream media narrative suggesting that only Congress has the authority to approve significant cuts to the federal workforce. Vought asserted a bold constitutional perspective: Trump possesses the executive powers necessary to streamline the extensive federal bureaucracy without congressional approval.
In a rather clumsy exchange, host Dana Bash attempted to invoke the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, aiming to corner Vought with the long-standing claim that Congress solely controls federal spending. However, Vought remained resolute, countering with a clear articulation of constitutional precedent and historical context.
When Bash accused Vought of being excessively harsh in his approach to federal workers, suggesting he intended to “traumatize” them, he deftly redirected the conversation to the systemic issues plaguing the bureaucracy itself.
Dana Bash: Let’s discuss the federal budget. It’s important to highlight the proposed cuts which, according to Elon Musk, amount to $175 billion. These cuts pertain to funding and programs that Congress has already ratified into law prior to your administration. You mentioned plans to submit about $9 billion in cuts this week for congressional approval, primarily focusing on foreign aid and public broadcasting. However, there are voices within Congress from both parties urging you to seek approval for all cuts made through DOGE. Will you do that?
Russ Vought: We might consider that. Our priority is to see how this initial bill performs. It’s crucial that it gets passed as it marks the beginning of several rescission bills. Interestingly, we may not need congressional approval for all rescission bills. Why? Because we have executive tools at our disposal. Historically, for over 200 years, presidents have been allowed to spend less than the allocated budget. If Congress designates $100 million for a specific purpose, and we can achieve the objective for less, that has traditionally been acceptable. The shift since the 1970s has unfortunately led to considerable waste, fraud, and abuse.
Moreover, the Impoundment Control Act itself allows for a mechanism known as pocket rescissions later in the year, enabling us to bank some savings without needing a bill to pass immediately. This provision, though rarely utilized, is indeed available, and we intend to leverage all these tools. While we hope Congress will pass necessary measures, we also recognize our executive capabilities, which we will utilize as we move forward. It is essential to pass this bill to gauge the willingness of both the House and Senate to support it.
Dana Bash: Let me clarify a few points you made. Firstly, you referenced a 200-year precedent regarding presidential authority over congressional appropriations. However, as viewers are likely aware, the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the power of the purse, which is why this dialogue even exists.
Russ Vought: Yes, Congress holds that power.
Dana Bash: That’s precisely what I want to address. There is ongoing debate regarding this 200-year precedent, particularly in light of the 1974 law you mentioned—the Impoundment Control Act. This law, in effect for over 50 years, mandates that the executive branch must implement laws enacted by Congress, except under specific circumstances involving negotiations with Congress. Do you, therefore, intend to challenge this in court to achieve a ruling on its constitutionality?
Russ Vought: We certainly haven’t dismissed the option of impoundment. We’re not particularly fond of the law itself. It emerged after two centuries of established precedent during a challenging time for the executive branch. However, even the Impoundment Control Act recognizes the legality of impoundments—note that it’s not called the Impoundment Elimination Act. The legislation acknowledges that such actions were lawful and acceptable. The Act allows for both congressional agreement on rescission bills and mechanisms for pocket rescissions that can occur later in the year.
Dana Bash: Congress claims you are violating the law.
Russ Vought: They are mistaken. We are not breaking any laws. Each branch of government must interpret and uphold the Constitution independently. While I expect tension and accusations from Congress, some of those claims will stem from their own watchdogs, who have historically been incorrect. That will not deter us from proceeding with our plans to streamline the federal bureaucracy.
Dana Bash: I want to broaden this discussion, as it forms part of a clear strategy you’ve maintained for years aimed at significantly reducing the federal government and consolidating power within the executive branch. You’ve been transparent about this objective. In 2023, you made a statement regarding federal workers. Let’s play that for our viewers.
Russ Vought (Flashback): We want the bureaucrats to feel a sense of trauma. When they wake up, we want them to dread going to work because they are increasingly perceived as the villains. We want to instill fear.
Dana Bash: Is causing fear among federal workers your goal as OMB Director?
Russ Vought: I appreciate how you’ve selectively quoted that statement about “trauma.” I was referring to the bureaucracy itself. We believe there is a weaponized bureaucracy comprised of individuals who have participated in administrations that are fundamentally woke and act against the interests of the American people. When the EPA imprisons a 77-year-old Navy veteran for maintaining ponds on his property to combat wildfires, that’s not just the FBI; it’s indicative of a larger systemic issue. Our aim is to defund and dismantle these bureaucracies.
Nonetheless, I want to emphasize that there are dedicated individuals at OMB, the FAA, and NIH who contribute significantly to essential public service efforts. It’s important to provide a complete context regarding what individuals like myself have articulated in the past. However, we will not shy away from our commitment to fundamentally reform the extensive, woke, and weaponized administrative state.
Dana Bash: You’ve consistently been very open about that being your goal. That’s evident.
