Staff Reports
Congressional Republicans are getting serious about trimming the bloated federal budget with a plan to cut a jaw-dropping $2 trillion over the next decade. As they monitor the nation’s checking account, they’re bringing out some unconventional toys from the political toy box: rescission legislation and presidential impoundment. While many everyday Americans might wonder if these terms were cooked up during a late-night reading of the U.S. Constitution, they are suddenly en vogue on Capitol Hill.
With a bold push for fiscal responsibility, Republican lawmakers, like Rep. Andy Harris from Maryland, are hinting that President Trump might be the one to spearhead this effort. He’s expected to trot out rescission bills that cancel previously allocated funds, a process so streamlined that it can zoom through the Senate without the dreaded filibuster, needing only a simple majority of 51 votes. Meanwhile, the idea of presidential impoundment, where the president simply decides to not spend all the money congressionally allocated, adds an exciting, albeit controversial twist that might lead to a showdown in the courts.
The legacy of former President Nixon looms large over these discussions, as he used impoundment like a kid in a candy store, leading Congress to pass the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act back in 1974. This new tool allowed rescission bills to be crafted, requiring a stamp of approval from both the House and the Senate. Now, with Trump at the helm, the possibility of facing off against the Democrat-dominated courts makes the situation even juicier, raising the stakes for this budgetary chess game.
Legal minds, like Mark Paoletta and Daniel Shapiro, are stepping into the fray, arguing that Trump’s push for impoundment is not the constitutional faux pas the left would like Americans to believe. Instead, it’s rooted in a rich tradition of efficient governance and constitutional authority that both sides of the aisle have grumbled about for years. They assert that many past presidents have complained about the limits placed on their ability to manage federal spending, itching to take action.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration is not twiddling its thumbs while these discussions unfold. Under Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s watch, a stunning 83% of programs at the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) are on the chopping block. Rubio emphasizes the alignment of these cuts with Trump’s foreign policy priorities, which primarily seeks to stop squandering taxpayer money on programs that serve no American interest.
Beyond budgeting, Republicans hope to force spending 'showdown' with two arcane weapons https://t.co/I7oHzyjNna
— John Solomon (@jsolomonReports) March 12, 2025
House Republicans are optimistic about the rescission route, with Rep. Ralph Norman from South Carolina already sounding the battle cry for a rescission package—pointing out that slashing payments for dubious expenses, including cash for news organizations and foreign condom distributions, is a no-brainer. Texas Rep. Troy Nehls is also pumped, noting for the first time, a president is actually auditing these agencies—something many in the bureaucracy can’t even pass without a failing grade.
However, Democrats are not simply rolling over. They seem to be gearing up for a fight, hoping to stymie these budgetary moves through the courts. A memo from House Democrats paints a dark picture of Trump’s plans as “unlawful impoundment.” They might want to buckle their seatbelts, though; the gears of reform are moving, and for every twist they throw at the President, it feels like the conservative chorus is growing louder, ready to take advantage of any small opening to push the agenda of shrinking government once and for all.
