Russ Vought: Appropriations process ‘has to be less bipartisan'
'The appropriations process has to be less bipartisan,' Vought told reporters at a Christian Science Monitor breakfast Thursday.
With Republicans in full control of government, he said now is the time for reining in spending, even without input from Democrats on Capitol Hill. He did not lay out a legislative path for partisan spending bills to clear the Senate, where 60 votes are required to pass legislation.
Vought said he's looking to 'change the paradigm' of the way appropriations has worked, pointing to the continued use of stopgap spending bills.
When specifically asked if he would reassure Democratic appropriators that the White House would abide by bipartisan spending agreements or commit to not using rescissions on future appropriations bills, he simply said he would not.
'There is no voter in the country that went to the polls and said, 'I'm voting for a bipartisan appropriations process,'' Vought said. 'That may be the view of something that appropriators want to maintain.'
He did, however, acknowledge that federal spending power lies with Congress.
'It is one of the most constitutional foundational principles, but that power of the purse does not mean — It's a ceiling. It is not a floor,' he said.
Vought reiterated his view and that of President Donald Trump that the 51-year-old Impoundment Control Act, which bars the president from withholding congressionally approved funds without asking Congress, is unconstitutional.
Vought's comments on the appropriations process come as the White House is on the precipice of a major win with the first partisan rescission package expected to pass the House this week.
'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. 'We're not there yet.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
28 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Trump Gets Silver Lining in New Poll As More Voters Approve of Economy
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump can take heart from a new Fox News poll that shows rating for the economy improving and feelings on the economic direction inching up even though a majority of voters disapprove of the job he is doing, dislike his new budget law, and doubt his dealings with Iran are making the U.S. safer. The poll was conducted from July 18-21 and is based on interviews with a sample of 1,000 randomly selected voters. Why It Matters The poll is a wide-ranging survey of voter feelings six months after Trump began his second term and comes as his administration is engulfed in a political crisis over the late convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. The poll found that only 13 percent of respondents think the government has been open and transparent about the case. President Donald Trump bangs a gavel after signing the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2025. President Donald Trump bangs a gavel after signing the "Big Beautiful Bill Act" at the White House in Washington, D.C., on July 4, 2025. Brendan SMIALOWSKI / POOL / AFP/Getty Images What To Know Thirty-two percent of voters rate economic conditions positively, the Fox poll shows. That is the highest number, by one percentage point, in about a year. On a personal level, 44 percent rate their financial situation positively, up from 39 percent in March and 38 percent in December. The poll found that 71 percent of respondents said inflation caused them financial hardship in the last six months but that is the lowest number since 2021, and down from a high of 78 percent in 2022, Fox said. The hardship is evenly distributed with large shares of Democrats (79 percent), independents (74 percent), and Republicans (62 percent) saying they felt it. "Overall, 56 percent are dissatisfied with the direction the country is taking. The silver lining is that's an improvement: 68 percent were dissatisfied at the end of last year, and it was 66 percent last summer," Fox said. On the president's key budget legislation, the "The One Big Beautiful Bill," or OBBB, Fox said "beauty is in the eye of the beholder." More respondents disapprove (58 percent) of the legislation than approve (39 percent) and more than twice as many think the law will hurt rather than help their family. Unsurprisingly, opposition to the budget comes from a large majority of Democrats, (89 percent) and independents (70 percent), but also one in five Republicans (21 percent). The poll found that significant shares of Trump's base oppose the bill, including 52 percent of rural voters, 46 percent of white men without a college degree, and 37 percent of white evangelical Christians, Fox said. The elements of the law that voters most dislike are increasing the debt ceiling (74 percent), reducing food stamp funding (65 percent), and making tax cuts permanent for those with higher incomes (64 percent). The most popular elements include removing taxes on tips (70 percent), making tax cuts permanent for those with yearly income of less than $250,000 (68 percent), and increasing military spending (61 percent), Fox said. "The survey reveals the greatest ideological agreement is on ending taxes on tips and making tax cuts to lower-income individuals permanent, as majorities of Democrats, Republicans, and independents approve—as well as on increasing the debt limit, as majorities of each disapprove," Fox said. Trump gets his best marks on border security with 56 percent approval compared with 44 percent disapproval. Voters are more disapproving of the job he is doing on other top issues such as immigration (48 percent approve and 51 percent disapprove), foreign policy (45 percent approve and 54 percent disapprove), the economy (44 percent approval, 55 percent disapproval), and inflation and tariffs (36 approve while 62 percent disapprove on both). "Currently, 46 percent of voters approve of Trump's performance, while 54 percent disapprove. That's exactly where things stood last month, and better than at this point eight years ago when 41 percent approved," Fox said. Attitudes on the U.S. strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were mixed, with 47 percent approving and 50 percent disapproving. On whether the strikes were mostly successful or mostly a failure, 31 percent thought the former and 27 percent the latter with the highest share, 42 percent, saying it was too soon to say. On the Epstein case, only 13 percent think the government has been open and transparent about it, with more than five times as many, 67 percent disagreeing with that, including 60 percent of Republicans and 56 percent of MAGA supporters. One voter in five says they haven't been following the case, Fox said. What People Are Saying Fox News said: "Six months into Donald Trump's second presidency, the political tea leaves are muddled." On Iran, Fox said: "Bottom line, 43 percent think Trump's dealings with Iran have made the U.S. less safe, which is 15 points higher than the 28 percent who say the country is safer," Fox said. What Happens Next The poll indicates that the Epstein case could sap Trump's support but sustained perceptions of an improving economy should help him.
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
Retail Investors Want In—Just As Private Equity Industry Resets
Private Equity Retail investors are increasingly eager to access private equity ('PE'), drawn by the promise of higher returns and diversification. With public markets dominated by a narrow set of tech-driven mega-cap stocks, the appeal of uncorrelated, long-term private market exposure is growing. According to the American Investment Council's 2025 public pension study, private equity delivered a median annualized return of 13.5% over the 10-year period ending in 2024. It was also the best-performing asset class in public pension portfolios—outpacing public equity, real estate, and fixed income. To date, retail investors have had limited access to burgeoning private assets, an immense marketplace. Private assets, including PE, have tripled in size since 2013 and are projected to reach $65 trillion globally by 2034, according to Bain. And more than 1,500 global startups now carry unicorn valuations, as companies stay private longer. Retail interest is being reinforced by a shift in policy. Congress is weighing legislation to allow defined contribution retirement plans—including 401(k)s—to access private equity. A new executive order is expected to clarify fiduciary protections for plan sponsors, particularly around fees and valuation concerns. However, retail's arrival comes just as the private equity model is undergoing a profound transition. A New Playbook for PE For much of the past decade, PE thrived on cheap debt, rising valuations, and global dealmaking. That model is under pressure. 'Performance levers that were pulled to such great effect during the low-rate era—principally financial leverage and valuation expansion—will lose potency,' notes Future Standard in their recent private markets outlook. Rather today, with borrowing costs higher and valuations compressed, managers must create value through margin expansion, pricing power, and operational efficiency. Meanwhile, the macro backdrop isn't helping. Current US policies have clouded the M&A environment, where valuation is often negatively correlated to volatility. And timely exits, which underpin PE's return profile, are becoming harder to achieve. Distributions as a share of net asset value have fallen to just 11%—the lowest in over a decade. And PitchBook estimates there are over 12,000 U.S. PE-backed companies in inventory—enough to last seven or eight years at the current exit pace. Even elite investors are adjusting to this new PE environment. Yale University, long an advocate of PE, is reportedly seeking to sell up to $6 billion in private equity holdings to manage liquidity constraints. Wall Street Eyes Retail As institutional fundraising slows, Wall Street is turning to retail. BlackRock recently launched a target-date fund including private equity and credit, backed by $30 billion in acquisitions to expand its private markets platforms. Certainly, private equity remains a powerful investment engine, but it's evolving. While institutional investors are equipped to navigate illiquidity, fees, and valuation opacity, the average retail investor may not be. Products reaching individual investors often lack the access or pricing advantages of large institutions. Layered fees—across platforms, managers, and structures—can severely dilute returns. In a lower-return environment, that friction matters more. Retail Proceeds with Care Successful retail participation will depend on access via sophisticated fiduciary advisors—those bound to act in a client's best interest and capable of navigating complexity. Policy may soon open the doors wider, but access is not the same as advantage. For retail investors, the PE opportunity is real—but so is the challenge to enter wisely.
an hour ago
Gabbard's claims of an anti-Trump conspiracy are not supported by declassified documents
WASHINGTON -- Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard this month declassified material that she claimed proved a 'treasonous conspiracy' by the Obama administration in 2016 to politicize U.S. intelligence in service of casting doubt on the legitimacy of Donald Trump's election victory. As evidence, Gabbard cited newly declassified emails from Obama officials and a five-year-old classified House report in hopes of undermining the intelligence community's conclusion that Russian President Vladimir Putin wanted to boost Trump and denigrate his Democratic opponent Hillary Clinton. Russia's activities during the 2016 election remain some of the most examined events in recent history. The Kremlin's campaign and the subsequent U.S. government response were the subject of at least five major investigations by the Republican-led House and Senate intelligence committee; two Justice Department special counsels; and the department's inspector general. Those investigations either concluded — or accepted the conclusion — that Russia embarked on a campaign to interfere in the election through the use of social media and hacked material. The House-led probe, conducted by Trump allies, also concurred that Russia ran an election interference campaign but said the purpose was to sow chaos in the U.S. rather than boost Trump. Several of the reports criticize the actions of Obama administration officials, particularly at the FBI, but do not dispute the fundamental findings that Moscow sought to interfere in the election. The Associated Press has reviewed those reports to evaluate how Gabbard's claims stack up: CLAIM: 'The intelligence community had one assessment: that Russia did not have the intent and capability to try to impact the outcome of the U.S. election leading up to Election Day. The same assessment was made after the election.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The documents Gabbard released do not support her claim. She cites a handful of emails from 2016 in which officials conclude that Russia had no intention of manipulating the U.S. vote count through cyberattacks on voting systems. President Barack Obama's administration never alleged that voting infrastructure was tampered with. Rather, the administration said Russia ran a covert influence campaign using hacked and stolen material from prominent Democrats. Russian operatives then used that information as part of state-funded media and social media operations to inflame U.S. public opinion. More than two dozen Russians were indicted in 2018 in connection with those efforts. Republican-led investigations in Congress have affirmed that conclusion, and the emails that Gabbard released do not contradict that finding. CLAIM: 'There was a shift, a 180-degree shift, from the intelligence community's assessment leading up to the election to the one that President Obama directed be produced after Donald Trump won the election that completely contradicted those assessments that had come previously.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. There was no shift. The emails Gabbard released show that a Department of Homeland Security official in August 2016 told then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper there was 'no indication of a Russian threat to directly manipulate the actual vote count.' The public assessment the Obama administration made public in January 2017 reached the same conclusion: 'DHS assesses that the types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying." CLAIM: The Obama administration "manufactured the January 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that they knew was false promoting the LIE that Vladimir Putin and the Russian government helped President Trump win the 2016 election.' — Gabbard on Truth Social Wednesday. The material declassified this week reveals some dissent within the intelligence community about whether Putin wanted to help Trump or simply inflame the U.S. public. That same question led to a partisan divide on the House Intelligence panel when it examined the matter several years later. Gabbard's memo released last week cites a 'whistleblower' who she says served in the intelligence community at the time and who is quoted as saying that he could not 'concur in good conscience' with the intelligence community's judgment that Russia had a 'decisive preference' for Trump. Such dissent and debate are not unusual in the drafting of intelligence reports. The Republican-led Senate Intelligence Committee examined whether there was any political interference in the Obama administration's conclusions and reported that 'all analysts expressed that they were free to debate, object to content, and assess confidence levels, as is normal and proper.' In 2018, Putin directly addressed the question of whether he preferred Trump at a press conference in Helsinki even as he sidestepped a question about whether he directed any of his subordinates to help Trump. 'Yes, I did,' Putin said. 'Because he talked about bringing the U.S.-Russia relationship back to normal.' CLAIM: 'They used already discredited information like the Steele dossier — they knew it was discredited at the time.' — Gabbard to Fox News on Tuesday. The dossier refers to a collection of opposition research files compiled by a former British spy, Christopher Steele, whose work was funded by Democrats during the 2016 election. Those files included uncorroborated tips and salacious gossip about Trump's ties to Russia, but the importance to the Russia investigation has sometimes been overstated. It was not the basis for the FBI's decision to open an investigation in July 2016 into potential coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, the Justice Department's inspector general found. Some of the records released by Gabbard this week also reveal that it was a Central Intelligence Agency human source close to the Kremlin that the agency primarily relied on for its conclusion that Putin wanted to help Trump and hurt Clinton, not the Steele dossier. FBI agents on the case didn't even come to possess the dossier until weeks into their inquiry. Even so, Trump supporters have seized on the unverified innuendo in the document to undercut the broader Russia investigation. Many of Steele's claims have since been discredited or denied. It is true, however, that the FBI and Justice Department relied in part on the Steele dossier to obtain surveillance warrants to eavesdrop on the communications of a former Trump campaign adviser, the inspector general found. FBI agents continued to pursue those warrants even after questions arose about the credibility of Steele's reporting. The dossier was also summarized — over the objections of then-CIA Director John Brennan, he has said — in a two-page annex to the classified version of the intelligence community assessment.
