Traumatically Affected

In October 2024, a video surfaced from a private gathering of Trump loyalists. In it, a mild-mannered budget wonk explained exactly what he intended to do to the people who work for the federal government. "We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected," he said. He wanted them dreading Monday morning, specifically because they'd come to see themselves as the villains of the story.

The man was Russell Vought. Four months later the Senate confirmed him, for the second time, to run the Office of Management and Budget, the unglamorous agency that controls whether every dollar Congress appropriates actually goes out the door. When CNN's Dana Bash asked him point blank if traumatizing federal workers was really his stated goal, he accused her of jerry-picking his quotes and pivoted to "weaponized bureaucracy." Eighteen months later, a senator would ask him directly to grade himself on how much trauma he'd inflicted. He answered that he thought his team had done "an incredible job."

That exchange is a decent stand-in for the whole Vought project. It looks, from a distance, like one more entry in the general chaos of this administration. Up close it's something narrower and more durable: a single man's decades-long argument that the law limiting a president's power to simply not spend money Congress has already approved is itself illegitimate, now being executed with the patience of someone who has had a long time to plan it.

The Story They're Telling

Give it its due before you take it apart.

Vought's framing isn't "spend whatever you want and dare anyone to stop you." At his January 2025 confirmation hearing he was more careful than that, telling the committee flatly that the president campaigned on the idea that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional. I agree with that. The argument underneath, developed with OMB General Counsel Mark Paoletta, is that presidents held an inherent constitutional power to withhold spending long before 1974, and that Congress's post-Nixon statute wrongly stripped it away.

Even people with no particular affection for Vought concede the statutory reading isn't frivolous. Analysts at the American Enterprise Institute have called the specific maneuver at issue, the pocket rescission, "an unfortunate loophole" in a law Congress arguably should have closed by now rather than an obvious act of lawlessness, noting both sides have a real textual case. This is a fight over an ambiguous forty-five-day clock buried in an obscure 1974 statute, not, on its face, a bureaucrat inventing tyranny from nothing.

Worth sitting with that for a second, because the rest of this piece is going to argue the fair reading is also the wrong one.

The Fifty-Year-Old Argument

Every mechanism starts somewhere. This one starts with Nixon.

The Impoundment Control Act exists because Richard Nixon spent his second term refusing to release money Congress had appropriated for programs he didn't like, using the withholding itself as a policy tool. Congress responded in 1974 by writing a specific, narrow process: a president can ask Congress to rescind funding, Congress gets forty-five days to act, and if it doesn't, the money still has to go out the door. The point was to close the loophole Nixon exploited, not open a new one.

Vought found the new one anyway. A pocket rescission works by sending the rescission request so close to the end of the fiscal year that the forty-five day clock runs out the same day the money itself expires. Congress technically gets its window. It just closes at the exact moment it stops mattering. OMB tested the maneuver for real in August 2025, proposing to cancel $4.9 billion in foreign aid days before the money would have lapsed anyway, on top of an earlier $9.4 billion package Congress had already approved that June. The Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan referee Congress built specifically to police this statute, said plainly that a pocket rescission essentially bypasses Congress's power of the purse.

Not His First Rodeo

This isn't a 2025 idea. It's a 2019 idea that got a second act.

Here's the detail that separates Vought from generic administrative chaos: he ran this exact play once before, and it has a name you'll recognize. During his first stint at OMB in 2019, the agency held up roughly $214 million in military aid to Ukraine, a hold that became one of the two articles in Trump's first impeachment. GAO ruled at the time that the withholding violated the Impoundment Control Act. Vought didn't abandon the theory after that finding. He spent the next five years, much of it running a think tank built for exactly this purpose, refining the legal argument for why GAO was wrong and he'd been right all along. Then he got the job back.

That's not a man improvising under pressure. That's a man returning to unfinished business.

The Scoreboard

Getting caught, repeatedly, has changed nothing so far.

Since January 2025, GAO has found the administration in violation of the impoundment law multiple separate times, including one finding that Trump's OMB illegally blocked NIH research funding for work on diseases like Alzheimer's and cancer. Comptroller General Gene Dodaro told the Senate Appropriations Committee he was actively investigating close to forty separate possible violations, while the ranking members of the House and Senate appropriations committees put the total amount improperly frozen at roughly $430 billion.

Susan Collins, the Republican chair of Senate Appropriations, hasn't minced words about it either, telling reporters flatly that Congress has the responsibility for the power of the purse and that rescinding money without approval is a clear violation of the law. Patty Murray, her Democratic counterpart, called the maneuver an end run around Congress plain and simple.

"They are going to call everything an impoundment because they want to grind our work to manage taxpayer dollars effectively to a halt. These are non-events with no consequence. Rearview mirror stuff."

That's Vought's actual response to a GAO violation finding, posted to social media. Not a denial. Not even much of a defense. Just a shrug, because he's functionally correct that nothing happens next. The Impoundment Control Act carries no direct penalty for violating it. GAO can only refer findings, name names, and hope somebody with actual enforcement power cares.

The Quiet One

The headline fights aren't the whole story. There's a second, bigger lever, and it barely made the news.

While the rescission fights were generating hearings and press releases, OMB spent the spring quietly writing something with a much longer half-life: a complete rewrite of the Uniform Guidance, the rulebook governing roughly $1 trillion to $1.2 trillion a year in federal grants across every agency in government. Published May 29, 2026, the proposal would require political appointees to personally sign off on discretionary grants before they go out, explicitly authorized to override the outcome of scientific peer review. It would let agencies cancel an award at any point for any reason, a "termination for convenience" standard lifted straight from federal procurement contracts, with no right to appeal. And it would convert what has always been non-binding guidance into a binding regulation, which sounds bureaucratic right up until you notice what it actually does: once something is a formal OMB regulation rather than guidance, a future administration that wants to reverse it has to run the entire multi-year notice-and-comment rulemaking process all over again rather than simply issuing new guidance.

The public noticed even if the headlines didn't. The docket drew close to half a million comments, the overwhelming majority opposed, before the July 13 deadline. OMB is targeting an October 1, 2026 effective date anyway.

The Actual Landmine

Not any single cut. The precedent that nothing happens when you get caught.

This is the part worth being precise about, because "chaos" and "incompetence" are the wrong frame for what's actually durable here. The rescission fights get litigated, sometimes reversed, eventually forgotten. What doesn't reverse is the fact that a president tried impoundment, got caught by his own government's watchdog, faced no legal consequence whatsoever, and simply did it again with better lawyers the second time. That precedent doesn't belong to this administration. It transfers intact to whoever holds the office next, of either party, because the next OMB director inherits both a tested legal theory and the demonstrated fact that using it carries no real cost.

There is an actual fix on the table. Democrats on the House Budget Committee, led by ranking member Brendan Boyle, have introduced the Congressional Power of the Purse Act, which would put real teeth in the Impoundment Control Act and the Antideficiency Act and create an inspector general inside OMB itself to police this from the inside. It sits in a Congress that would need to want the fight badly enough to actually have it, the same Congress that's spent this year mostly writing strongly worded letters. Nothing about the current arithmetic suggests that's imminent.

So the honest ending here isn't a resolution. It's an observation: the mechanism Nixon inspired and Vought spent six years perfecting is still running, nobody with the power to stop it for good has chosen to, and every fiscal year it survives without consequence makes it a little more normal for whoever comes next.

Like what you've read, but not able to switch to paid? Why not buy me a coffee instead! All money goes to help defray the expense of running the site.