Trump's vast federal cuts create distrust on Capitol Hill as shutdown risk grows

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration has begun to slow or halt funding approved by Congress across dozens of programs, triggering a new wave of distrust on Capitol Hill as lawmakers race to avert a federal shutdown. Billions of dollars have been paused or redirected, with as much as $410 billion at risk, according to congressional estimates. The money had been allocated for Head Start early-childhood programs, National Institutes of Health grants, funding for the nation’s public libraries and museums, infrastructure money to renovate classrooms and build electric-vehicle charging stations, and FEMA food and shelter assistance.

“There’s a lot of fear out there,” said Tommy Sheridan, deputy director of the National Head Start Association, whose organization raised early concerns about funding delays that could impact children and families. While the money is largely flowing again, Sheridan said, thanks in large part to Head Start’s track record — celebrating its 60th anniversary this year — “Obviously, we need to make sure our funding is reliable.”

On Capitol Hill, observers say the impoundments represent a direct challenge to the separation of powers. The standoff has sparked warnings from lawmakers on both sides of the aisle that the White House is testing the boundaries of executive power after Congress approved and funded a broad array of programs. Sen. Patty Murray, the top Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, told lawmakers during a summer hearing with budget director Russ Vought that the administration’s actions amount to a dangerous departure from the norm. “Every single one of us should be deeply alarmed by the lawless course the administration is charting here.”

On the surface, the dispute centers on spending levels and the White House’s push to end what is described as woke or wasteful programs. But observers say the tension reveals a deeper question about how much authority the president should wield to prune funding after Congress has acted. Kevin Kosar, a scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, characterized the current moment as an unprecedented high-water mark for presidential assertion over the spending power: “This might be the highest point ever.” He added that Trump’s approach “really garbles the logic” of the budget process and erodes traditional norms surrounding appropriations.

This week, the Office of Management and Budget under Vought directed agencies to prepare for mass firings — reductions in force — rather than mere furloughs in the event of a shutdown, a move some analysts view as a dramatic use of executive power. The debate has spurred comparisons to how past presidents have challenged Congress, including Jimmy Carter vetoes and George W. Bush signing statements, but critics say the current approach goes further in bypassing the normal legislative process.

The conflict arrives as Sept. 30, the federal fiscal year-end, nears and lawmakers must decide whether to sustain government funding without ceding more control to the executive branch. The White House has pressed ahead with a pair of rescissions. Earlier this year, Congress, then under Republican control, approved a request to claw back about $9 billion in funding for public broadcasting, including NPR, and for certain foreign aid programs, despite Democratic objections. A second package, about $4.9 billion in cuts to USAID foreign aid programs, was sent to Congress again last month. If Congress does not act before the deadline, the funds would be canceled under the so-called pocket rescission.

“The President is using his authority under the Impoundment Control Act to deploy a pocket rescission, cancelling $5 billion in foreign aid and international organization funding,” the White House said in announcing the latest package. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, the chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, has called the move to rescind funds without congressional approval a potential violation of the law. Late Friday, the Supreme Court extended an order allowing the administration to keep the funds frozen, a development supporters framed as a win for restraint on government spending.

The Government Accountability Office, the nonpartisan watchdog for Congress, has opened dozens of investigations this year into how — or whether — funds are being disbursed in line with appropriations. GAO general counsel Edda Emmanuelli Perez explained that presidents can propose changes, but Congress must approve them. “If Congress does not pass it, then that means the president has to, again, go back to the terms of the law and release those funds,” she said, reiterating the framework set by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

As the deadline approaches, the stakes extend beyond fiscal housekeeping. The administration’s posture has already disrupted key federal programs and testing lawmakers’ willingness to confront executive overreach. Advocates for block grants and social services warn that even short-term funding pauses can ripple across vulnerable populations and the communities that rely on programs like Head Start during a year marked by the program’s 60th anniversary.

The broader political landscape reflects a year of tight budget battles in a polarized capital. Supporters of tighter fiscal discipline argue that rescissions could force the government to reallocate resources toward core priorities and reduce waste. Critics contend that the moves undermine trust in the federal funding system and threaten the stability of essential services that millions of Americans depend on.

With the Sept. 30 deadline looming, there is little time for a clean resolve. The coming days will determine whether Congress will accept or reject the administration’s rescission proposals, setting the tone for how the executive and legislative branches will navigate fiscal policy and the management of a sprawling federal budget in a politically charged era.