SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
patty murray
Progressives, Democrats Vow Fight as Senate GOP Aims to Claw Back Billions in Federal Funding
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.
Jul 10, 2025
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:
- Research into Alzheimer's disease, women's health, cancer, diabetes, and other illnesses;
- Natural disaster relief;
- School lunch assistance for children;
- Early childhood education through the Head Start Program; and
- Birth control and cancer screenings for over 800,000 patients
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 Majority 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."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Top Dems Say Trump Admin Is Deliberately Hiding How It's Spending Taxpayer Dollars
Incomplete spending plans submitted by federal agencies raise "serious questions about what exactly this administration is seeking to hide."
May 28, 2025
Top Trump administration officials have spoken at length about alleged irresponsible government use of taxpayer dollars and a lack of transparency at federal agencies, with President Donald Trump and his billionaire ally, Elon Musk, focusing heavily during their first months in the White House on promoting what they claimed was "government efficiency."
But in a letter to the head of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Trump appointee Russell Vought, two top Democrats in Congress said Tuesday that the office in charge of producing and managing the president's budget is "intentionally" misleading Congress—and the American people—and refusing to provide transparency about how public funds are being used.
"Your lack of transparency shows disdain for the right of the public to understand how taxpayer dollars are being spent and for the rule of law," wrote Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.) and Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), who are the ranking members of the House and Senate appropriations committees, respectively.
The two lawmakers were among the Democrats who spoke out in the first days of Trump's second term, when Vought issued a memo directing a funding freeze for all federal grants and loans, which had already been appropriated by Congress—an action that has since been blocked by numerous court orders.
Again, said DeLauro and Murray, the Trump administration is failing to adhere to federal laws affirming that Congress has the "power of the purse"—this time by not disclosing how agencies are spending taxpayer dollars.
DeLauro and Murray pointed to Vought's removal in late March of an OMB website that made federal spending allocations available to the public as evidence that he is depriving "the public of information they are entitled to in law but also undermin[ing] Congress' ability to carry out its legislative and oversight functions."
Further, they wrote, under Vought's direction the OMB has developed "inconsistent and inadequate spending plans for fiscal year 2025 submitted by departments and agencies under section 1113(a) of the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations Act."
"Many agencies' plans still have yet to be submitted or blatantly omit basic funding details at your agency's direction."
The bill was passed in mid-March, with departments and agencies required to submit a complete "spending, expenditure, or operating plan for fiscal year 2025" within 45 days of its passage.
"These spending plans were due to the appropriations committees on Tuesday, April 29," wrote DeLauro and Murray. "Four weeks have now come and gone, and while the committees began receiving some spending plans from departments and agencies consistent with the 45-day requirement, many agencies' plans still have yet to be submitted or blatantly omit basic funding details at your agency's direction."
The lawmakers pointed to the spending plans of the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services (HHS) as evidence that the OMB and the Trump administration have "demonstrated an inability to effectively and efficiently manage public resources."
The Department of Education's plan was submitted on the deadline of April 29, but "completely omitted dozens of specific programs and activities."
The education document also said nearly $13 billion was "unallocated," though much of that funding is directed for specific purposed by law. A revised plan sent to Congress on May 23 still included $8 billion in "unallocated" funding and lacked "detail on dozens of programs now with only four months left in the fiscal year."
The spending plan submitted by HHS included the label "Hill Version" in the file name—suggesting there was another internal version that the agency headed by Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was not sharing with lawmakers.
The HHS document included only "high-level funding amounts" and provided no funding information for hundreds of programs.
"Instead, it lists 530 asterisks in place of details about how this administration is choosing to fund—or not fund—hundreds of programs that the American people count on every day," wrote DeLauro and Murray. "We need to see the 'real version' of HHS' spend plan, and we need to see actual funding amounts—not asterisks—for these vital programs."
The lawmakers demanded that the OMB comply with section 1113 by the end of May "and ensure that all spending plans contain sufficient information to demonstrate how each department and agency intends to prudently obligate all amounts provided by Congress."
The incomplete spending plans, they said, raise "serious questions about what exactly this administration is seeking to hide from the committees—and the American people."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amid Destructive Firing Spree, Trump Wants His Political Cronies to Get Max Pay
"Padding the pockets of political operatives while firing food safety inspectors is nothing short of an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars and massively wasteful," wrote a group of Democratic senators.
May 28, 2025
Senate Democrats on Wednesday launched an investigation into the Trump administration's effort to give political appointees the maximum allowable salary while it fires career civil servants en masse, dismantles entire federal agencies, and works in concert with Republican lawmakers to gut safety net programs.
In a letter to Trump's Office of Personnel Management (OPM), Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.) and seven other Democratic senators raised alarm over an April 10 OPM memo that removed career human resources officials from appointment and salary processes and urged federal agency heads to pay policy-setting Schedule C appointees the max salary of $195,200 per year.
"This memo, coupled with the administration's widespread layoffs of career government workers who have loyally served in the executive branch for presidents of both political parties, makes clear your intention: fire dedicated public servants in droves, cut essential government services, and use taxpayer dollars to instead hire underqualified and overpaid political cronies," the senators wrote to Acting OPM Director Charles Ezell.
"Schedule C hires are not career civil servants. They will not be answering phones at Social Security field offices or conducting food inspections or fighting wildfires," the lawmakers continued. "They do not work for the American people; they work to advance the political agenda of the president. OPM's April 10 memo makes clear the Trump administration's ultimate goal is to decimate the nonpolitical career civil service and use taxpayer dollars to enrich and reward political allies, all at the cost of the government services that people rely on."
"Padding the pockets of political operatives while firing food safety inspectors is nothing short of an egregious abuse of taxpayer dollars and massively wasteful," they added.
"Your memo encourages agencies to help install loyalists who have not been properly vetted, in critically important positions—and to pay them at the highest possible rate."
The Senate Democrats demanded that Ezell provide them with salary information for political appointees and job descriptions for those hired at the maximum salary level of $195,200, which the lawmakers noted is roughly five times the median income for a single individual in the United States.
"While this administration pushes out scores of public servants and guts entire agencies, often in defiance of Congress and federal law," the Democrats wrote, "your memo encourages agencies to help install loyalists who have not been properly vetted, in critically important positions—and to pay them at the highest possible rate."
Following the release of OPM's memo last month, Government Executive observed that "traditionally, while the selection of Schedule C appointees is typically the job of the White House or an agency's White House liaison, career HR employees evaluate an incoming appointee's resume and experience, ensure they are properly vetted, and provide input about the appointee's proposed starting salary."
By removing career HR officials from the appointment process, the memo "appears aimed at expediting the replacement of career workers with political appointees," the outlet reported—advancing a top goal of the Trump administration and its far-right allies.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular