WASHINGTON — Congress is supposed to have the power to control government spending as laid out by the framers of the U.S. Constitution. Lately, though, congressional Republicans are more than happy to sit back and hand over the reins to President Donald Trump.
Trump has benefited from an unprecedented expansion of executive power in recent months. With the blessing of the conservative majority on the Supreme Court, the president has moved to unilaterally freeze spending, shutter government agencies, and levy massive tariffs — all authorities that are technically under the purview of the legislative branch.
The lack of courage to stand up to Trump — even on something fundamental like the power of the purse — has left senior lawmakers of both parties deeply frustrated.
“At what point are my Republican colleagues going to stand up for this branch of government? Why would you run for office?” fumed Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii) in a Wednesday speech on the Senate floor, objecting to the Trump administration’s dismantling of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) without congressional approval.
“We are lawmakers. We should be legislating,” added Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska). “What we’re getting now is a direction from the White House and being told this is the priority… I don’t accept that.”
Republicans are expected to approve a package of recissions on Thursday clawing back $9 billion in previously enacted federal funding for humanitarian aid, international development, public health and public broadcasting, including funding for National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. If approved, it would codify some cuts made unilaterally by the so-called Department of Government Efficiency that was led by billionaire Elon Musk earlier this year.
GOP senators argued that certain U.S. foreign aid programs were wasteful. They also said the cuts were needed to help get the nation’s fiscal health in order, even though they just passed a massive bill that is projected to explode the deficit by $4 trillion.
“We should never be funding vegan food in Africa, social media mentorship in Europe, or Net Zero Cities in Mexico,” Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) said Wednesday. “These programs are unaccountable, unnecessary and truly out of touch with Americans’ priorities. Americans voted for fiscal savings — not foreign slush funds.”
“People would see the American flag, whether on the side of a truck or a sticker on a food parcel, and think, ‘The good guys are here. Help is coming.’ But not anymore.”
– Sen. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii)
While typically 60 votes are required to pass legislation in the Senate, rescissions only require a simple majority, or 51 votes. The lopsided process is threatening to unravel bipartisan talks over government spending, which were already facing an uphill hurdle. After all, what incentive do Democrats have to negotiate with Republicans if the GOP can simply decide later to cancel spending they don’t like via a partisan process that requires only a simple majority?
“We have never, never before seen bipartisan investments slashed through a partisan rescissions package,” Sen. Patty Murray (D-Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a speech on the Senate floor. “Do not start now. Not when we are working, at this very moment, in a bipartisan way to pass our spending bills.”
Even some GOP senators are receptive to that argument. After all, Republicans acknowledge they may find themselves in the same position when they are in the minority.
“If someone in the administration goes and cuts something that was clearly a part of a deal … then they’re destroying our chances of getting trust for the next appropriations bill,” retiring Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) told reporters on Wednesday. “We’ve got to worry about how this process affects the Senate.”
The North Carolina Republican said he is willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt when it comes to this bill. But he warned that if his administration goes too far, they’ll have “a miserable time trying to get future funding.”
Other Republican senators, however, complained that the White House had barely given any information to Congress about how they would implement the cuts.
“They won’t tell us how they’re going to apply the cuts,” Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who voted against the bill, told reporters on Tuesday. “I want to make it clear I don’t have any problem with reducing spending … They would like a blank check is what they would like, and I don’t think that’s appropriate.”
The White House did heed Congress on one issue. After several GOP senators objected to cutting $400 million in funding for PEPFAR, a George W. Bush administration initiative that has helped poorer nations combat HIV and AIDS and is credited with saving millions of lives around the globe, the rescission for the program was removed from the bill.
But the bulk of the cuts were left in, including to critical programs that support millions of vulnerable people around the world.
“Donald Trump, aided by a band of loyalists and ideologues, has chosen instead to inflict death and disease and starvation on the world’s most vulnerable,” Schatz lamented on Wednesday.
“We used to be the indispensable nation that people around the world counted on for help,” he added. “People would see the American flag, whether on the side of a truck or a sticker on a food parcel, and think, ‘The good guys are here. Help is coming.’ But not anymore. We are causing death now. We are spreading disease now. We are deepening starvation now.”