Russ Vought

We have executive tools that we can use if Congress is not going to pass these bills, but they've been demanding them. The process is one of an exception –

or a a procedure in the impoundment control act and you and i know and are not big fans of the impoundment control act and how it has bound the president correct but there is a there is a process it's called a fast track procedure to give an up or down vote in both the house and the senate without concern with regard to the filibuster that will allow this to be voted on in the house and the senate leadership of both parties has said look we're going to get this thing passed

or a a procedure in the impoundment control act and you and i know and are not big fans of the impoundment control act and how it has bound the president correct but there is a there is a process it's called a fast track procedure to give an up or down vote in both the house and the senate without concern with regard to the filibuster that will allow this to be voted on in the house and the senate leadership of both parties has said look we're going to get this thing passed

we're going to send that up when they get back formally. They need to be there to receive it, and then we'll start working with them to get the votes to get this thing through.

we're going to send that up when they get back formally. They need to be there to receive it, and then we'll start working with them to get the votes to get this thing through.

Well, I think the reality of these rescissions is that I think we all think that government is too big, and it has been for quite some time, decades. But when you see the fine print, when you see what the contracts are and you see what we're funding –

Well, I think the reality of these rescissions is that I think we all think that government is too big, and it has been for quite some time, decades. But when you see the fine print, when you see what the contracts are and you see what we're funding –

You come away with this aha moment, this realization, of course these countries think worse of us and dislike us because we're funding this kind of garbage in their countries. We would not accept or we shouldn't be accepting, and part of the Trump administration is to push back and make sure domestically we're not funding this as the Department of Education. Or USDA.

You come away with this aha moment, this realization, of course these countries think worse of us and dislike us because we're funding this kind of garbage in their countries. We would not accept or we shouldn't be accepting, and part of the Trump administration is to push back and make sure domestically we're not funding this as the Department of Education. Or USDA.

But then you add the fact this was our foreign policy. This is our foreign policy to fund, quote unquote, the resilience of the queer and trans sex movement in other countries. Like what on earth are we doing? And of course, that's going to have an implication as to whether these countries are listening to what our interests. And of course, it has led to great.

But then you add the fact this was our foreign policy. This is our foreign policy to fund, quote unquote, the resilience of the queer and trans sex movement in other countries. Like what on earth are we doing? And of course, that's going to have an implication as to whether these countries are listening to what our interests. And of course, it has led to great.

We would be concerned if we were their citizens with it. And so one after another, all we did, Charlie, is we took straight doge cuts, contracts, grants saved. We added them up and we sent this first tranche – we will be sending this first tranche over. So I think the debate is very simple on the Hill. Do you stand with us against these ridiculous items? The president would call them fraudulent.

We would be concerned if we were their citizens with it. And so one after another, all we did, Charlie, is we took straight doge cuts, contracts, grants saved. We added them up and we sent this first tranche – we will be sending this first tranche over. So I think the debate is very simple on the Hill. Do you stand with us against these ridiculous items? The president would call them fraudulent.

And or not, or are you going to say that there's some issue with regard to these cuts that we should actually be in the business of this? And I think it's going to be a very important debate. It's the first in a series of rescissions packages that we will, in fact, send. And depending on how successful it goes, we'll send more.

And or not, or are you going to say that there's some issue with regard to these cuts that we should actually be in the business of this? And I think it's going to be a very important debate. It's the first in a series of rescissions packages that we will, in fact, send. And depending on how successful it goes, we'll send more.

Final thoughts is that obviously economic growth and tariffs, but spending reductions and spending restraint is an enormous part of what's necessary to balance the budget. That's in two components, right? That's the first part is going after the woke and weaponized and wasteful bureaucracy. That is what we're doing with these doge cuts. That's what we'll be doing with rescissions.

Final thoughts is that obviously economic growth and tariffs, but spending reductions and spending restraint is an enormous part of what's necessary to balance the budget. That's in two components, right? That's the first part is going after the woke and weaponized and wasteful bureaucracy. That is what we're doing with these doge cuts. That's what we'll be doing with rescissions.

And that will be over a 10-year period, incredible amounts of money. And I think the most important, because that's the federal government that you and I interact with. That's the one that is kind of aimed at us, increasingly less so with President Trump. But we want to make sure that the bureaucracy... can't reconstitute itself later in future administrations.

And that will be over a 10-year period, incredible amounts of money. And I think the most important, because that's the federal government that you and I interact with. That's the one that is kind of aimed at us, increasingly less so with President Trump. But we want to make sure that the bureaucracy... can't reconstitute itself later in future administrations.

Secondly, there are reforms to welfare and to we will call them mandatory programs that have made the social safety net a benefit hammock. And that is keeping people out of the workforce and leading to less growth. And that's the kind of thing that we will need to tackle within the construct of reconciliation.