Beginning when he took office in January, President Trump and his administration have been delivering on their commitment to slash wasteful government spending, cutting billions of dollars from the federal budget devoted to bloated government agencies like USAID and the Department of Education. Through the newly formed Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), led by Elon Musk, the administration has been hard at work identifying and gutting wasteful and excessive agencies, programs, and initiatives.
Congress and the White House can also work together to pass a rescissions package through the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act. While typically 60 votes are required to pass legislation in the Senate (a 3/5 majority), rescissions only require a simple majority, or 51 votes in the Senate, making it a powerful tool to put America’s fiscal house in order.
Background
Passed in 1974, the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act establishes a process for cancelling unnecessary funding to executive branch agencies. Under this law, the president may withhold and permanently cancel funding to executive branch agencies passed into law by Congress. This is accomplished only if Congress approves of the president’s special message that includes rescissions specifying the “amount of budget authority” to be rescinded, as well as “all facts, circumstance, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed rescission.”
Once the special message is delivered, Congress then chooses whether to introduce a rescission bill and what cuts proposed by the president to include in the bill. When a rescission bill is introduced and referred to the relevant committee, the committee has 25 calendar days to report the bill. If the committee fails to report the bill, any member can discharge the bill from committee with one-fifth approval of the chamber vote. Debate on the motion to the rescission bill is limited to two hours in the House, ten hours in the Senate, and two hours for a conference report within the period of 45 days of continuous session following delivery of the special message. A rescission bill not included in the president’s special message would be subject to a potential filibuster.
Potential Spending Reductions
Congress has an opportunity to cancel wasteful spending associated with two egregious examples: USAID and NPR/PBS.
USAID
USAID is a troubling tale of a government agency going off the rails ideologically and losing both political support in Congress and the trust of the people. While USAID was formed in 1961 to counter Soviet efforts to spread communism in the developing world and respond to global disasters, sometime during the Clinton administration, USAID began to promote radical social agendas.
Foreign aid has become a massive financial boon for progressives as Americans across the country have struggled to pay their bills. Under the Biden administration, USAID has become an agency wasting billions of dollars on a global green agenda that forces poor countries to rely on China for its energy needs, and administering transgender, diversity, and abortion programs.
Additional Reading:
Testimony: America Last: How Foreign Aid Undermined U.S. Interests Around the World by Max Primorac (Written Testimony)
Testimony: The USAID Betrayal by Max Primorac (Written Testimony)
Heritage Foundation: How USAID Went Woke and Destroyed Itself
Corporation for Public Broadcasting
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is funded by Congress, provides grants to organizations like National Public Radio (NPR) and Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), a non-profit. Routinely, NPR and PBS support green new deal, transgender, and DEI agendas. NPR’s audience overwhelmingly identifies as liberal, reinforcing the reality that public broadcasting is not a neutral service but a taxpayer-funded ideological platform. PBS has masterfully managed to be almost as biased as NPR, while hiding behind a sheen of respectability.
Thomas Jefferson, summed up why continued taxpayer funding for public broadcasting is immoral when he said, “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagations of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”
The arrangement is not just unfair to American taxpayers, but also unfair to private-sector media competitors. Why should PBS and NPR receive a taxpayer subsidy when MSNBC and Salem Radio are forced to compete without it?
Additional Reading:
Testimony: Anti-American Airwaves: Holding the heads of NPR and PBS Accountable by Mike Gonzales (Written Testimony)
Heritage Foundation: Defunding NPR and PBS through Rescissions is a Good Start
Heritage Foundation: NPR and PBS are Begging for Mercy. They Don’t Deserve It
Conclusion
Using The Impoundment Control Act to issue recissions is a great opportunity for Congress to cut excessive spending and curb the federal debt. By reining in federal spending using the Impoundment Control Act, congressional Republicans can demonstrate that they are committed to stewarding taxpayer dollars responsibly and delivering on the America First mandate from the American people.