Latest news with #ImpoundmentControlAct
Forbes
2 days ago
- Business
- Forbes
Pocket Rescissions May Be Part Of U.S. Fiscal 2025 End Game
The current U.S. fiscal year closes on September 30. Though the recently enacted One Big Beautiful Bill has dominated attention in the nation's capital, other pressing concerns—centering on the limits of presidential budgetary power—will likely emerge in the run-up to the September 30 fiscal year-end. Efforts by the Trump administration to curtail spending rely on unusual and legally dubious budget execution including a novel legal tactic known as a pocket rescission. That tactic holds that presidential rescission proposals made late in the fiscal year allow the executive branch to not spend lawfully provided funds if the Congress fails to act on such requests. A widespread use of pocket rescissions could prevent many billions of dollars of policy priorities mandated in law, via legislation passed by the Congress and signed by the President Trump, from being carried out. Are Spending Deferrals Permitted? An early indication of the novel approach of pocket rescission was a memo issued a week after the inauguration directing agencies to pause a broad range of financial assistance. While later withdrawn, the memo's intent appears to have remained in place: Delay spending to ensure agencies are delivering assistance that aligns with administration policies. Presumably, at least some of the rationale for pulling back the memo stemmed from its inconsistency with the Impoundment Control Act, part of a 1974 law stipulating U.S. budgeting procedures. That statute gives the president the power to temporarily withhold funds if Congress is notified. But such deferrals are permissible only to provide for contingencies, to achieve savings from changed requirements or operational efficiencies, or as explicitly provided by law. The Government Accountability Office has supplemented those reasons with a category known as 'programmatic delay,' or an unavoidable delay despite good faith efforts to comply with the law. Delays based on executive branch disagreement with the merits of appropriations are prohibited, and deferrals cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year. Rescissions In The Back Pocket? Beyond deferrals, the ICA empowers the president to propose the rescission (or cancellation) of spending that has been provided through the appropriations process. Like deferrals, congressional notification is required. However, in the case of rescissions, Congress must pass a new law agreeing to such cuts. Passage is facilitated by expedited legislative procedures—a simple majority required in the Senate—provided in the ICA. While funds proposed for rescission may be withheld for 45 calendar days of continuous session of Congress, they must be released for expenditure if the rescission legislation is not enacted. The GAO is investigating numerous instances where appropriated funds have not been allocated. Its findings have met resistance from the Office of Management and Budget. While GAO has the statutory authority to sue to compel the release of these funds, the rapidly approaching fiscal year-end likely renders that prospect impractical. (The term of Comptroller General Gene Dodaro, the current head of GAO, concludes later this year, with President Trump to appoint his replacement.) The White House has now thrown a significant new wrinkle into the mix: The Trump administration appears to have failed to make plans to use some funds before they are scheduled to expire. During a June 1 appearance on CNN, OMB Director Russell Vought asserted, 'Even the Impoundment Control Act allows for procedures that both require their assent on a rescissions bill -- that's the one that we're sending up this -- early this week -- and also allow for pocket rescissions for those that come later in the fiscal year.' That latter idea flows from a notion that if rescissions are proposed late in the fiscal year and Congress does not have the full 45-day period to act on any such proposals, the funds expire and become unavailable for obligation. The reasoning extends to assert that even without explicit congressional approval, funds could be allowed to lapse at year's end in a manner mimicking a pocket veto of legislation. (A pocket veto can occur when Congress sends a bill to the president but then ends its session, thereby preventing the president from returning the bill with objections; if the president does not sign the bill, it does not become law.) Working at cross purposes with that theory are various statutes and constitutional principles requiring the executive branch to ensure funds are prudently obligated during their period of availability. The president is granted the explicit power to propose rescissions, not to enact them. To that point, GAO has ruled that an ICA violation occurs if a rescission package is sent late in the fiscal year and funds are not released in a manner allowing for their prudent obligation before expiration. Can Pocket Rescissions Occur If Budget Is Properly Executed? While the administration argues the ICA implicitly allows pocket rescissions, if it explicitly follows the requirements of both the ICA and the Antideficiency Act (which demands continuous funding apportionments to agencies), a pocket rescission becomes legally impossible. This is because proper apportionments and timely proposals for deferring or rescinding unneeded appropriations prevent the accumulation of large unobligated balances that could otherwise be offered as late-fiscal-year rescissions. As of now, the White House has notified Congress only of a pending $9.4 billion rescission request (and no funding deferrals). While the House has approved the request and the Senate is considering it, the administration might attempt a pocket rescission to cancel the funding even if congressional approval is not forthcoming. Operating under the belief that pocket rescissions are legal, a cascade of similar requests could soon be made, potentially resulting in billions of dollars not spent, contrary to appropriations law.
The Hill
01-07-2025
- Business
- The Hill
Congress should reform the Government Accountability Office, not gut it
In their latest effort to cut perceived government waste, House Republicans have proposed slashing the Government Accountability Office's annual budget by nearly 50 percent. It's the latest political challenge in 2025 for the congressional watchdog agency, which has historically enjoyed strong bipartisan support. But rather than cutting GAO, lawmakers should modernize the agency to better serve Congress. GAO's team of more than 3,500 workers conducts reviews and provides reform recommendations to Congress and federal agencies. Its work routinely improves executive agency operations and informs legislation. GAO is a rare institution in Washington that reports measurable financial savings. Last year, it estimated that its work yielded $67.5 billion in savings — $76 for every dollar of its $900 million budget. That's why the office has long had backers in both political parties and is widely considered the government's most effective cost-cutting agency. But now, GAO faces political opposition over its statutory responsibilities. Under the Congressional Review Act, GAO issues legal opinions on federal regulations. In March, GAO responded to a congressional inquiry by issuing a decision that undermined congressional Republicans' plans to repeal Clean Air Act waivers issued by the Biden administration. Congress ignored GAO and voted to revoke the regulations anyway. This controversy has grown into a broader clash over GAO's relationship with the White House. The Impoundment Control Act requires GAO's comptroller general to review presidential funding delays, issue rulings and potentially sue the executive branch. GAO has already found two violations by the Trump administration in 2025 and is reportedly examining dozens more. In response, the executive branch has shown a new aggression towards GAO. The Office of Management and Budget has called GAO's oversight 'voluminous, burdensome, and inappropriately invasive,' and said it will only cooperate with GAO's reviews if they 'do not unduly impede OMB's ability to implement the president's agenda.' But GAO is not actively seeking political conflict — it is simply following the law by issuing these decisions. Congressional Republicans should reform the statutes if they disagree. Beyond legal disputes, some Republicans on Capitol Hill have concerns about GAO's management. Its union secured a telework agreement allowing most employees to work remotely, while Republicans have pressed for other federal workers to return to the office. Some lawmakers and staff also complain GAO reports offer overly cautious, process-oriented recommendations that lack actionable solutions. GAO has also reported some disappointing results in recent years with 30 percent of their recommendations being ignored by federal agencies. Following the Department of Government Efficiency's aggressive efforts to streamline federal spending and trim the federal workforce, GAO's approach of year-long reviews and lengthy reports with even handed framing may seem timid and ineffectual. All these conflicts have come to a head in a recent party-line vote by the House Appropriations Committee to approve a bill that would deeply cut GAO's funding and bar the comptroller general from acting on recent impoundments. Congressional Republicans are right to think that GAO needs reform. But rather than gutting GAO, Congress should fix it to better serve taxpayers and revise its legal responsibilities. Congress has already been working to improve GAO's return on investment. A 2019 law required agencies to report on progress implementing GAO recommendations, while 2023 laws asked GAO to estimate potential savings from unheeded guidance. Last year, appropriators directed GAO to add deadlines to new recommendations to promote faster action. Now is a timely moment for Congress to enact broader reforms. Congress and President Trump are poised to choose the next comptroller general after Gene Dodaro's 15-year term ends in December. Legislation to modernize GAO's role, clarify the comptroller general's legal responsibilities, and streamline and refocus the office's work on the most pressing issues facing the federal government could enhance GAO's value for Congress. Absent such reforms, GAO's future will depend on its next leader. But steep budget cuts will make that job even more difficult. Former Comptroller General David Walker, who led GAO from 1998 to 2008, warned that the proposed cut is akin to Congress 'shooting itself in the head.' He urged the House and Senate to protect GAO's budget. Walker knows firsthand the effect of steep budget cuts on the office. In the 1990s, Congress downsized GAO's staffing by over a third. In response, Walker rebranded the agency, refocused its mission, and introduced return-on-investment reporting to demonstrate the office's value. These reforms restored congressional confidence that has largely lasted until now. But Congress shouldn't force GAO's next leader to endure a similar rebuilding project. Holding hearings and using legislation to modernize GAO's mission would position the next comptroller general to succeed. Congress needs a proactive and trusted watchdog to navigate the difficult governance challenges ahead. Dan Lips is a senior fellow with the Foundation for American Innovation.
Yahoo
12-06-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
White House looks to freeze more agency funds — and expand executive power
The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies, people familiar with the strategy told POLITICO's E&E News. The strategy: order agencies to freeze the spending now — then ask Congress' approval, using a maneuver that allows the cuts to become permanent if lawmakers fail to act. The move would ax billions of dollars beyond the $9.4 billion in White House-requested cuts, known as 'rescissions,' that the House approved Thursday. The Office of Management and Budget late last week directed several agencies to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. The architect of the freeze directive, OMB Director Russ Vought, has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — first reported by E&E News — appears designed to test those boundaries. The agencies targeted by the newest freeze include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services. E&E News granted anonymity to the two people familiar with the strategy so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the power of the purse lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending 'deferrals' package that the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. Freezing the spending before making that request seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, they described it as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet, said one person in the administration with direct knowledge of the strategy. The person said the White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail. Vought has said repeatedly he disagrees with the impoundment act, a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Democrats and legal scholars have said Trump already has violated the law. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN in an interview on June 1. The separate $9.4 billion rescissions package that the House approved Thursday would permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. If the president introduces a recissions package then, Congress has a limited time to act — and if it does not do so, the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass both chambers of Congress, the administration person said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered on Labor Department spending. The deferrals package is a third strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority "to provide for contingencies" or "to achieve savings" through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement Monday. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the person with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials object, said another person at an agency that would be affected. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. "It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made," the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of the book "The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking." 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration official with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education "accounts for a deferral package," NSF Budget Director Caitlyn Fife wrote last Friday in a note to top officials. "I imagine you will all have questions, as do we," she said. "However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations." An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said offices relying on previous-year funding could see their "programs gutted." The official also predicted that if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. He said the White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution, and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. Federal spending decisions are 'a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions,' he added. 'And this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
Politico
12-06-2025
- Business
- Politico
White House looks to freeze more agency funds — and expand executive power
The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies, people familiar with the strategy told POLITICO's E&E News. The strategy: order agencies to freeze the spending now — then ask Congress' approval, using a maneuver that allows the cuts to become permanent if lawmakers fail to act. The move would ax billions of dollars beyond the $9.4 billion in White House-requested cuts, known as 'rescissions,' that the House approved Thursday. The Office of Management and Budget late last week directed several agencies to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. The architect of the freeze directive, OMB Director Russ Vought, has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — first reported by E&E News — appears designed to test those boundaries. The agencies targeted by the newest freeze include the Environmental Protection Agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation and the departments of Interior and Health and Human Services. E&E News granted anonymity to the two people familiar with the strategy so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the power of the purse lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending 'deferrals' package that the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. Freezing the spending before making that request seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power and the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, they described it as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet, said one person in the administration with direct knowledge of the strategy. The person said the White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail. Vought has said repeatedly he disagrees with the impoundment act, a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Democrats and legal scholars have said Trump already has violated the law. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN in an interview on June 1. The separate $9.4 billion rescissions package that the House approved Thursday would permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the Sept. 30 end of the fiscal year. If the president introduces a recissions package then, Congress has a limited time to act — and if it does not do so, the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass both chambers of Congress, the administration person said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered on Labor Department spending. The deferrals package is a third strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority 'to provide for contingencies' or 'to achieve savings' through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement Monday. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the person with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials object, said another person at an agency that would be affected. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. 'It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made,' the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of the book 'The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking.' 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration official with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education 'accounts for a deferral package,' NSF Budget Director Caitlyn Fife wrote last Friday in a note to top officials. 'I imagine you will all have questions, as do we,' she said. 'However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations.' An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said offices relying on previous-year funding could see their 'programs gutted.' The official also predicted that if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. He said the White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution, and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. Federal spending decisions are 'a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions,' he added. 'And this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
Scientific American
10-06-2025
- Business
- Scientific American
White House Launches Another Assault on Science Funding
CLIMATEWIRE | The Trump administration is working on a new effort to both weaken Congress' grip on the federal budget and freeze billions of dollars in spending at several government agencies. The architect behind the move is Russ Vought, who leads the Office of Management and Budget at the White House. Vought has long lamented the limits placed on the president's ability to direct federal spending. His latest gambit — which has not been reported previously — appears designed to test those boundaries. His office late last week directed several agencies, including EPA, the Interior and Health and Human Services departments as well as the National Science Foundation, to freeze upward of $30 billion in spending on a broad array of programs, according to both agency emails and two people familiar with the plan. On supporting science journalism If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today. POLITICO's E&E News granted anonymity to the two people so they could speak freely without fear of reprisal from the Trump administration. OMB's targets include NSF research and education programs that operate using funding leftover from 2024. Also on the list are tens of millions of dollars for national park operations as well as more than $100 million in science spending at NASA, which includes climate research. While the president has some measure of control over how federal agencies spend their money, the 'power of the purse' lies primarily with Congress under the U.S. Constitution. Put another way: Lawmakers set the budget. Vought is trying to turn that principle on its head. The order to freeze some funding at more than a dozen agencies comes in advance of a budget spending deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress. Spending deferrals allow the executive branch to temporarily prevent authorized dollars from going out the door — but only if lawmakers sign off on the move. The deferrals strategy seems to fly in the face of Congress' constitutional power of the purse and the Impoundment Control Act, said Joseph Carlile, former associate director at OMB in the Biden administration. 'There is a right, a legal way, for the administration to rescind things and I guess they're pursuing this because they don't have their stuff together or don't care about the law,' said Carlile, who also worked previously on budgetary oversight on the House Appropriations Committee for 13 years. 'This is consistent with an administration that believes that they have broader powers around budget and spending than any other administration has ever been able to find,' Carlile added. White House officials did not deny the new strategy when asked about it. Rather, it was described as a way to lock in spending cuts prescribed by the Department of Government Efficiency, a cost-cutting outfit championed by Trump donor and entrepreneur Elon Musk. Yet the White House has worked to keep the effort quiet. The White House directive was communicated largely to agencies over the phone to avoid creating a paper trail, said one administration source with direct knowledge of the effort. OMB officials are preparing a unique strategy to weaken congressional budget authority under a Nixon-era law that limits the president's ability to block spending for political reasons. Vought has said repeatedly he does not agree with the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which Democrats and legal scholars have said he already has violated. 'We're not in love with the law,' Vought told CNN recently. The White House already has sent to Congress a $9.4 billion rescissions package to permanently cut funding for NPR and PBS as well as foreign aid. Vought has said he expects to send more rescissions packages to Congress. Vought's multipronged strategy also is likely to include a 'pocket rescissions' strategy, by which the White House intentionally runs out the clock near the end of the fiscal year. If a package is introduced then, Congress has a very limited time to act — and if it does not do so — the funds slated for elimination are automatically canceled. The White House may use the pocket rescissions strategy if the $9.4 billion rescissions package does not pass Congress, the official said. And it could pursue another pocket rescissions strategy centered around Labor Department spending, The deferrals package is a third and separate strategy — and it comes ahead of an expected congressional fight on lifting the debt ceiling before the end of the summer. It would essentially pause or significantly slow funding intentionally, until it can be crafted into a separate pocket rescissions package that can run down the clock and be made permanent. Under the impoundment law, the White House can ask Congress to defer some of its budget spending authority "to provide for contingencies" or "to achieve savings" through efficiency gains. The White House is planning to argue that hitting the debt ceiling — a borrowing limit imposed and periodically raised by Congress — is such a contingency. The nation is expected to reach the debt ceiling by the end of August. The White House strategy is to delay or block funds now, then craft an additional rescissions package later in the year that would make such cuts permanent. 'OMB is hard at work making the DOGE cuts permanent using a wide range of tools we have at our disposal under the ICA [Impoundment Control Act] and within the President's authority— just like the first rescissions package that was sent up to the Hill this week,' OMB spokesperson Rachel Cauley said in a statement. 'As a part of that process, we are constantly checking in with agencies to assess their unobligated balances.' Fight could land at Supreme Court The latest effort may be more comprehensive than other blocks on federal funding that Vought has enacted, according to the source with direct knowledge of the move. It could also be a 'trial balloon' to see whether the White House can unilaterally block future spending if Trump administration officials have an objection, said another source at an impacted agency. The move appears to be a significant escalation of Vought's efforts to test the boundaries of the Impoundment Control Act. Vought's strategy is to rely on Section 1013 of the act, which grants the president the authority to freeze spending if the administration explains its actions to lawmakers. The act originally allowed one chamber of Congress to reject presidential deferrals, a power that courts rejected. As a result, the law was amended in 1987 to limit how long presidents could delay spending and under what conditions. "It does not appear that any measures to disapprove a deferral have been considered since these amendments were made," the Congressional Research Service said in a February report on the impoundment law. Vought has long argued that impounding some congressionally appropriated funding is constitutional, and he has said he wants the Supreme Court to validate what would be a significant weakening of congressional oversight of the federal budget. The deferrals package the White House plans to send Congress would temporarily stop agencies from spending unobligated funds that remain at the end of the government's fiscal year on Sept. 30. The broad-based deferrals package is highly unusual and could be part of his strategy to take his fight for greater executive power to the Supreme Court, said Philip Joyce, a professor at the University of Maryland's School of Public Policy and author of "The Congressional Budget Office: Honest Numbers, Power, and Policymaking." 'It is a novel approach, but I think in the end, they really want this to go to the Supreme Court,' Joyce said. 'They think they know how the Supreme Court is going to rule and once the Supreme Court opens the door, you know, it's kind of high noon for the separation of powers, which is what they want.' Last week, OMB officials reached out to federal agencies to tell them to enact the spending freeze. Some agency officials were 'shocked' at the move, according to the administration source with direct knowledge of the plan. The head of the National Science Foundation's budget office didn't know what to make of the directive, according to an email obtained by E&E News. OMB is targeting the agency's research and education "accounts for a deferral package," NSF budget director Caitlyn Fife wrote Friday in a note to top officials. "I imagine you will all have questions, as do we," she said. "However we are immediately focused on pulling the funds back to ensure there are no further commitments or obligations." An NSF official briefed on the spending freeze said that offices that were relying on previous year funding could see their "programs gutted." The agency source also predicted that, if OMB's ploy succeeds, it will use deferrals to impound any congressionally directed spending the administration opposes. That means the deferrals package strategy is likely the start of a significant and questionable push to expand executive power, said Carlile, the former OMB associate director. The White House is essentially seeking to subvert the Constitution, which grants Congress spending authority, in such an extreme way that it threatens the nation's democratic structure, he said. 'I think it upends a fundamental check and balance contemplated in our Constitution and I don't understand how you subordinate Congress' power of the purse,' Carlile said. 'This is a deal between the executive and the legislative branch as institutions, and this all starts to unravel real quick if our budgetary framework really actually meant nothing.'
