Trump wants to use DOGE's suspect handiwork to drive spending cuts through Congress, targeting programs that don't conform to his extreme ideology

(Instagram)

The Trump administration is asking Congress to let it "claw back" funds the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) has identified as examples of "waste, fraud, and abuse." The news raises a truckload of questions, perhaps the biggest one being this: Is Congress actually going to base cuts to the federal budget on the work of Elon Musk's DOGE, an entity that can't seem to keep its stories or figures straight? Should anyone trust the work product of DOGE, which seems to conduct itself in a haphazard, arbitrary fashion that is anything but transparent? The Associated Press (AP) and Yahoo! News take a look at those issues and more in a jointly published article under the headline "Trump formally asks Congress to claw back approved spending targeted by DOGE." Josh Boak reports:

The White House on Tuesday officially asked Congress to claw back $9.4 billion in already approved spending, taking funding away from programs targeted by Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency.

It's a process known as “rescission,” which requires President Donald Trump to get approval from Congress to return money that had previously been appropriated. Trump's aides say the funding cuts target programs that promote liberal ideologies.

The request, if it passes the House and Senate, would formally enshrine many of the spending cuts and freezes sought by DOGE. It comes at a time when Musk is extremely unhappy with the tax cut and spending plan making its way through Congress, calling it on Tuesday a “disgusting abomination” for increasing the federal deficit.

This could be the first of several budget-cutting procedures the Trump administration places before Congress. Early signs point to House Republicans going along with most anything Trump proposes, possibly without asking any tough questions, in a process that cries out for scrutiny. The reception budget-cutting proposals might receive in the Senate is less clear. Boak lays out the prospects for meaningful action that might actually get the burgeoning budget deficit under control:

White House budget director Russ Vought said more rescission packages and other efforts to cut spending could follow if the current effort succeeds.

“We are certainly willing and able to send up additional packages if the congressional will is there,” Vought told reporters.

Here's what to know about the rescissions request:

Will the rescissions make a dent in the national debt?

The request to Congress is unlikely to meaningfully change the troublesome increase in the U.S. national debt. Tax revenues have been insufficient to cover the growing costs of Social Security, Medicare and other programs. The Congressional Budget Office estimates the government is on track to spend roughly $7 trillion this year, with the rescission request equaling just 0.1% of that total.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters at Tuesday's briefing that Vought — a “well-respected fiscal hawk,” she called him — would continue to cut spending, hinting that there could be additional efforts to return funds.

“He has tools at his disposal to produce even more savings,” Leavitt said.

Vought said he can send up additional rescissions at the end of the fiscal year in September “and if Congress does not act on it, that funding expires.”

“It’s one of the reasons why we are not putting all of our expectations in a typical rescissions process,” he added.

Is this process about fiscal responsibility or political ideology? Which one is of more interest to Trump? Lets' take a look over Boak's shoulder:

What programs are targeted by the rescissions?

A spokesperson for the White House Office of Management and Budget, speaking on condition of anonymity to preview some of the items that would lose funding, said that $8.3 billion was being cut from the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). NPR and PBS would also lose federal funding, as would the U.S. President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, also known as PEPFAR.

The spokesperson listed specific programs that the Trump administration considered wasteful, including $750,000 to reduce xenophobia in Venezuela, $67,000 for feeding insect powder to children in Madagascar and $3 million for circumcision, vasectomies and condoms in Zambia.

With major cuts planned for USAID, NPR, PBS, and AIDS relief, it seems clear that this really is about shoving Trump's ideology down the throats of Congress and the American public -- even though recent polls show  many of Trump's programs are deeply unpopular.

Under the "leadership" of Speaker Mike Johnson, Trump's biggest cheerleader, White House proposals are expected to breeze through the House. What about overall passage? Boak examines that question:

Is the rescissions package likely to get passed?

House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., complimented the planned cuts and pledged to pass them.

“This rescissions package reflects many of DOGE’s findings and is one of the many legislative tools Republicans are using to restore fiscal sanity,” Johnson said. “Congress will continue working closely with the White House to codify these recommendations, and the House will bring the package to the floor as quickly as possible.”

Members of the House Freedom Caucus, among the chamber’s most conservative lawmakers, said they would like to see additional rescission packages from the administration.

“We will support as many more rescissions packages the White House can send us in the coming weeks and months,” the group said in a press release. “Passing this rescissions package will be an important demonstration of Congress’s willingness to deliver on DOGE and the Trump agenda.”

Sen. Susan Collins, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, gave the package a less optimistic greeting.

“Despite this fast track, the Senate Appropriations Committee will carefully review the rescissions package and examine the potential consequences of these rescissions on global health, national security, emergency communications in rural communities, and public radio and television stations,” the Maine lawmaker said in a statement.

For much of his second term, Trump has acted as if Congress doesn't exist. In fact, several commentators have speculated that one of Trump's major goals is to rip the power of the purse away from Congress, in true dictatorial fashion. So why does Trump seem obsessed with Congress now? There is a reason for that, as Boak explains:

Why does the administration need Congress' approval?

The White House's request to return appropriated funds is meant to comply with the 1974 Impoundment Control Act. That law created the process by which the president can formally disclose to Congress the appropriated money it intends to not spend. Congress generally has 45 days to review and approve the request, but Vought is arguing that the end of the fiscal year would enable the administration to bypass a vote.

The Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a fiscal watchdog group, said in a 2018 backgrounder that the Senate can pass rescission packages with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes needed to overcome a possible filibuster. Between 1974 and 2000, presidents requested $76 billion worth of rescissions and Congress approved $25 billion.

Bobby Kogan, senior director of federal budget policy at the Center for American Progress, a liberal think tank, said in an emailed statement that the Trump administration was already “illegally impounding additional funds,” as withholding money has “always been illegal without explicit Congressional approval.”

On CNN on Sunday, Vought insisted that the Trump administration was complying with the law, but it simply had a different view of the law relative to some Democrats.

“We’re not breaking the law,” Vought said. “Every part of the federal government, each branch, has to look at the Constitution themselves and uphold it, and there’s tension between the branches.”