SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
");background-position:center;background-size:19px 19px;background-repeat:no-repeat;background-color:#222;padding:0;width:var(--form-elem-height);height:var(--form-elem-height);font-size:0;}:is(.js-newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter_bar.newsletter-wrapper) .widget__body:has(.response:not(:empty)) :is(.widget__headline, .widget__subheadline, #mc_embed_signup .mc-field-group, #mc_embed_signup input[type="submit"]){display:none;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) #mce-responses:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-row:1 / -1;grid-column:1 / -1;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget__body > .snark-line:has(.response:not(:empty)){grid-column:1 / -1;}:is(.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper) :is(.newsletter-campaign:has(.response:not(:empty)), .newsletter-and-social:has(.response:not(:empty))){width:100%;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col{display:flex;flex-wrap:wrap;justify-content:center;align-items:center;gap:8px 20px;margin:0 auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .text-element{display:flex;color:var(--shares-color);margin:0 !important;font-weight:400 !important;font-size:16px !important;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col .whitebar_social{display:flex;gap:12px;width:auto;}.newsletter-wrapper .newsletter_bar_col a{margin:0;background-color:#0000;padding:0;width:32px;height:32px;}.newsletter-wrapper .social_icon:after{display:none;}.newsletter-wrapper .widget article:before, .newsletter-wrapper .widget article:after{display:none;}#sFollow_Block_0_0_1_0_0_0_1{margin:0;}.donation_banner{position:relative;background:#000;}.donation_banner .posts-custom *, .donation_banner .posts-custom :after, .donation_banner .posts-custom :before{margin:0;}.donation_banner .posts-custom .widget{position:absolute;inset:0;}.donation_banner__wrapper{position:relative;z-index:2;pointer-events:none;}.donation_banner .donate_btn{position:relative;z-index:2;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_0{color:#fff;}#sSHARED_-_Support_Block_0_0_7_0_0_3_1_1{font-weight:normal;}.sticky-sidebar{margin:auto;}@media (min-width: 980px){.main:has(.sticky-sidebar){overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.row:has(.sticky-sidebar){display:flex;overflow:visible;}}@media (min-width: 980px){.sticky-sidebar{position:-webkit-sticky;position:sticky;top:100px;transition:top .3s ease-in-out, position .3s ease-in-out;}}.grey_newsblock .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper, .newsletter-wrapper.sidebar{background:linear-gradient(91deg, #005dc7 28%, #1d63b2 65%, #0353ae 85%);}
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
Republicans plan to utilize a rare process called "rescission" to skirt Congress' power of the purse and illegally allow Trump to withhold hundreds of billions of dollars in federal funding to critical programs.
The U.S. Senate will soon vote on whether President Donald Trump can claw back billions of dollars that have already been appropriated by Congress.
Last month, the House narrowly voted to allow Trump to rescind $9.4 billion in funds that were meant to fund global health initiatives—including AIDS, malaria, and tuberculosis prevention—and public broadcasters like PBS and NPR.
It's far from the first time that this Republican-controlled Congress has voted on massive budget cuts, but progressive groups and some Democratic lawmakers say this vote has another frightening dimension to it.
These funds were among the more than $420 billion appropriated by Congress that Trump illegally impounded, or refused to spend, at the start of his term.
In a letter sent Wednesday to members of Congress, a coalition of more than 100 groups—including Public Citizen, the AFL-CIO, and Greenpeace—warned that by voting to approve these rescissions of federal funds, they would be giving Trump tacit approval to unconstitutionally take away Congress' authority to spend money.
"This rescissions proposal does not ask Congress, as required by the Impoundment Control Act, to approve the entirety of the federal spending that has been illegally frozen by the Trump administration," the letter notes. "The administration is merely trying to establish a veil of legitimacy while it continues unconstitutional actions that it began more than 100 days ago."
The groups went on to warn that allowing the president to unilaterally cut funding that he doesn't approve of "risks irreparable damage to the regular bipartisan appropriations process."
"Despite the political back-and-forth, Congress eventually reaches a bipartisan agreement on government funding every year, one way or another," they said. "The basis for that bipartisan agreement is that both parties must agree to compromises to achieve any of their goals. If a party with a political trifecta can simply rescind funding for the parts of appropriations bills they compromised on, they undermine congressional checks and balances and the basis for future bipartisan dealmaking on an already politically fraught process."
Under the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, presidents are forbidden from unilaterally refusing to spend funds. However, Congress is allowed to pass a "rescission" bill within 45 days of canceling them if the president requests it.
Trump would be the first president since Bill Clinton in 1999 to successfully have funds rescinded by Congress, and it would be the largest rescission in four decades.
But as the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities points out, there is a key difference: "The administration illegally impounded the funds at issue for months before proposing the [rescission] package" and that it is "unlawfully withholding much larger amounts of funding that it has not proposed for rescission."
According to a tracker created by the office of Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who sit on the House and Senate appropriations committees, respectively, the Trump administration is blocking congressionally appropriated funds for programs including:
Russell Vought, the head of the White House's Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has openly indicated a desire to use rescission to cut all of this spending "without having to get an affirmative vote" from Congress.
According to The New York Times, Vought is planning to use an even more arcane and illegal maneuver known as "pocket rescission" to avoid spending the funds. As Tony Romm reported in June:
Under the emerging plan, the Trump administration would wait until closer to Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year, to formally ask lawmakers to claw back a set of funds it has targeted for cuts. Even if Congress fails to vote on the request, the president’s timing would trigger a law that freezes the money until it ultimately expires.
Some Senate Democrats have indicated they'd be willing to risk a government shutdown to prevent the rescission bill from passing.
In a letter published Tuesday, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) wrote that the prospect of the rescissions bill passing had "grave implications."
"[I]t is absurd for [Republicans] to expect Democrats to act as business as usual and engage in a bipartisan appropriations process to fund the government, while they concurrently plot to pass a purely partisan rescissions bill to defund those same programs negotiated on a bipartisan basis behind the scenes," Schumer wrote.
Murray called out Vought directly on Wednesday at a markup session on the next round of bills in the Senate Appropriations Committee.
"For us to be able to work in a bipartisan way effectively, that requires us to work with each other. To not just write bipartisan funding bills—but to defend them from partisan cuts sought by the president and the OMB director," she said during her opening remarks. "We cannot allow bipartisan funding bills with partisan rescission packages. It will not work."
One Democratic senator ripped the mega-billionaire's attacks on the judiciary, saying such behavior should not be tolerated in "rule-of-law countries."
Unelected shadow government leader Elon Musk ramped up his attack on the U.S. judiciary on Thursday by expressing support for a Republican impeachment effort targeting one of the federal judges who blocked the Trump administration's destructive funding freeze.
"Yes," Musk wrote on his social media platform in response to a post from Rep. Andrew Clyde (R-Ga.), who announced Wednesday that he is drafting articles of impeachment against Judge John McConnell of the U.S. District Court for the District of Rhode Island.
Musk, the world's richest man and the leader of a commission that President Donald Trump has granted sweeping power to assail federal agencies, has repeatedly lashed out at U.S. judges in recent days as they've issued orders hindering his cronies' access to key government payment systems and data.
"Impeach this activist posing as a judge!" Musk wrote on Wednesday, referring to McConnell. "Such a person does great discredit to the American justice system."
Earlier this week, McConnell demanded that the Trump administration comply with his earlier order to halt the federal funding freeze amid mounting evidence that administration officials are ignoring the judge's instructions.
NBC News reported earlier this week that "a senior official at the Federal Emergency Management Agency instructed subordinates to freeze funding for a wide array of grant programs Monday, just hours after a federal judge ordered the Trump administration—for the second time—to stop such pauses."
Musk has made clear that he's not singling out McConnell. "There needs to be an immediate wave of judicial impeachments," the mega-billionaire wrote Wednesday.
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, just like Congress and the presidency. When Musk and his cronies do illegal things, it's their JOB to step in and block them."
Other Trump administration officials, and Trump himself, have similarly decried recent interventions by federal courts.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt lamented during a briefing Wednesday that the Trump administration has been hit with "at least 12 injunctions" over the past two weeks as rights groups and Democratic attorneys general have mobilized against the president's blatantly lawless executive orders.
Reuters noted that Musk's call for a "wave of judicial impeachments" came "a day after federal courts forced U.S. agencies to restore health-related websites taken down in response to one of Trump's executive orders and declined to lift a judge's order barring the administration from freezing federal funding."
"Those and other legal setbacks have prompted Trump, key members of his administration, and Musk to attack judges who have blocked major pieces of his agenda, in some cases arguing judges have no power to intrude on the president's authority," the outlet added.
In a social media post earlier this week, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) slammed Musk's "thuggery toward judges," adding that such attacks are unacceptable in "rule-of-law countries."
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) added that "Musk may get to be a dictator at Tesla," but "he doesn't get to be one in Washington."
"The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, just like Congress and the presidency," Van Hollen wrote. "When Musk and his cronies do illegal things, it's their JOB to step in and block them."
"Our polling finds that voters want the government to do more to help them," said Data for Progress' leader, warning that "their view of DOGE and the administration could quickly sour."
Survey results released Thursday show that majorities of U.S. voters think billionaire Elon Musk will use his position in the Trump administration for self-enrichment and fear that the presidential advisory commission he is chairing will target Social Security, food assistance, healthcare programs, and more.
Data for Progress and the Progressive Change Institute conducted a series of surveys about Musk—the world's richest person—and the new Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the lead-up to and shortly after Republican President Donald Trump's return to the White House on December 14-15, January 10-11, and January 24-27.
Watchdogs and some lawmakers have sounded the alarm about Musk—whose business affiliations include social media platform X, space exploration company SpaceX, and electric vehicle makerTesla—potentially using his post at DOGE to benefit himself, and the new polling suggests voters share those concerns.
Pollsters found that 51% of voters across the political spectrum agreed that Musk "isn't interested in efficiency, he's only interested in enriching himself," and he will be able to use DOGE to direct resources—including more federal contracts—toward his companies and weaponize the government to undermine competitors.
There were clear divisions among party lines: 74% of Democrats expect self-enrichment from Musk, while just 29% of Republicans have such concerns. Independents and third-party voters were split at 49%. Among all respondents, 14% said they "don't know," and 35% believe that "Musk has shown he has experience saving taxpayers money and helping the government improve."
Trump announced that the billionaire would lead DOGE—which is focused on gutting federal regulations and slashing spending—shortly after his November victory, which was aided by over a quarter-billion dollars from Musk. They initially floated cutting $2 trillion but Musk has since tempered expectations.
The pollsters found that 87% of U.S. voters are somewhat or very concerned about DOGE and the Trump administration targeting Social Security for cuts. Similarly, 84% fear cuts to veterans' healthcare, and 83% worry about cuts to the Affordable Care Act, Medicaid, or Medicare.
The polling shows that 79% are worried about reducing food inspections as well as research for cancer, chronic illness, and infectious diseases. Additionally, 78% fear cuts to food assistance for low-income families, such as the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).
Majorities of voters are concerned about downsizing national defense as well as cutting the federal workforce and funding for national parks, according to the surveys. They are also worried about reducing: federal disaster response and weather monitoring, environmental and toxic waste cleanup, road maintenance, mail delivery, and student loan aid.
The surveyers also questioned voters about messaging on the Musk-led commission. As Data for Progress detailed in a Thursday blog post:
When a case for DOGE is tested against two alternative messages against DOGE, saying DOGE will "steal from you by cutting Social Security, Medicare, and veterans healthcare to give tax breaks to giant corporations and billionaires like Musk" performs better with Independent voters, whose views on DOGE shifted 24 points more unfavorably on net, compared with simply saying DOGE will cut those programs or simply saying DOGE will benefit billionaires...
Additionally, while saying DOGE will cut programs to "give tax breaks to giant corporations and billionaires like Musk" effectively decreases DOGE's favorability, a message that combines "steal from you" and "give tax breaks" has an even greater negative impact on voters' opinion on DOGE, particularly among Independents whose views on DOGE shifted 14 points more unfavorably on net with the combined message.
Another round of tax cuts for the wealthy, similar to the law Trump signed in 2017, is a top legislative priority for Republicans, who now control both chambers of Congress in addition to the White House.
The pollsters also found that 56% of all voters—including 67% of Democrats, 55% of Independents, and 45% of Republicans—believe "the government should do more to solve problems and help Americans." Another 19% believe the government is doing "the right amount," while 22% think it is doing "too much" and 7% aren't sure.
Data for Progress executive director Danielle Deiseroth noted in a Thursday statement that the survey results were published amid mass chaos over a now-rescinded Office of Management and Budget (OMB) memo about Trump's federal funding freeze, which led to lawsuits and the Tuesday shutdown of Medicaid payment portals nationwide.
"As Trump's chaotic OMB memo showed, his administration is using 'government efficiency' as a way to slash the healthcare and benefits that Americans rely on each day from the federal government," she said. "Our polling finds that voters want the government to do more to help them, and as they learn more about these disruptions led by Trump and Elon Musk, their view of DOGE and the administration could quickly sour."