The director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, Russell Vought, sparked controversy by suggesting that a more partisan approach to the congressional appropriations process could lead to better outcomes.
Speaking at a breakfast interview hosted by the Christian Science Monitor, Vought argued that the current system, often reliant on bipartisan cooperation, contributes to the nation’s $37 trillion debt.
“The appropriations process has to be less bipartisan,” he said, emphasizing that a temporary shift toward partisan control could ultimately foster more effective bipartisanship in the long term. He believes this approach would allow Republicans, who currently hold full control of the government, to deliver on promises to reduce federal spending.
Vought criticized the frequent use of stopgap funding bills and large omnibus packages, which he said are often rushed through Congress at critical moments, limiting the executive branch’s ability to negotiate.
“You’re going to put everything through on that omnibus bill and jam it through to get a signature, probably when five foreign affairs crises are happening, and he can’t afford to have that particular fight,” he explained.
He also noted that while Congress holds the “power of the purse,” the allocated funds represent a ceiling, not a mandate to spend every dollar. “It is not the notion that you have to spend every last dollar of that,” Vought stated.
Congressional Reactions and Democratic Pushback
Vought’s remarks drew sharp criticism from Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer, who called for President Trump to dismiss the OMB director. “I’m just furious,” Schumer said, labeling Vought’s advocacy for partisanship as an attempt to “destroy our democracy and run the country into the ground.”
The New York Democrat argued that such a stance threatens the balance of power in Congress, where spending bills traditionally require bipartisan support due to the Senate’s 60-vote filibuster threshold. Schumer described Vought’s perspective as a “firing offense” for someone in his position.
Democrats also expressed concerns over a recent $9 billion spending cut package, passed by the Senate through a partisan process known as rescissions, which bypasses the filibuster. They argue that this move, tied to savings identified by the Department of Government Efficiency, undermines trust in bipartisan negotiations.
With government funding set to expire on September 30, Democrats warned that Republican tactics could complicate efforts to reach a bipartisan agreement to avoid a shutdown.
When pressed on how Democrats would approach these talks, Schumer deflected, saying, “Ask the Republicans what they want.”
Efforts to Address Federal Spending
Vought defended his position by highlighting voter priorities, stating, “There is no voter in the country that went to the polls and said, ‘I’m voting for a bipartisan appropriations process.’” He argued that Republican control of Congress and the White House presents an opportunity to tackle the national debt through targeted spending reductions.
The recent rescissions package, which the House was expected to pass for President Trump’s signature, reflects this approach. Vought hinted at plans for additional rescissions proposals, though he noted, “We’re not there yet,” and avoided elaborating further.
In response to the backlash, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt suggested that Vought’s comments were misinterpreted. She clarified that his intent was to encourage bipartisan cooperation on reducing wasteful spending, not to exclude Democrats. “I think our Office of Management and Budget director was saying this process should be more bipartisan,” Leavitt said.
“There was a time in this country when Democrats, too, cared about getting rid of waste, fraud, and abuse in our federal spending. I think every American agrees the government spends way too much money on things that don’t matter.”
