In recent weeks, White House officials have been brainstorming strategies to legally enshrine the government cuts initiated by billionaire Elon Musk and his team. Their goal is to transform the U.S. DOGE Service actions into lasting policy shifts. However, the administration is facing significant resistance not only from Democrats but also from congressional Republicans. According to lawmakers and several individuals familiar with the discussions, GOP members have indicated that codifying even a fraction of the measures implemented unilaterally by Musk’s team could be challenging.
Republicans in Congress are currently focused on unifying their slim majorities to extend tax cuts in a comprehensive bill that President Donald Trump has demanded. As the White House prepares to release its budget proposal, the ongoing impasse over DOGE cuts highlights a major challenge to the administration's ambitious plans for a significant overhaul of federal agencies. Both the courts and Congress have been reluctant to provide the necessary legal backing for the spending cuts enforced by Musk, which could severely limit DOGE’s long-term impact despite the disruption it has already caused within the government.
“None of the activities of the DOGE have heretofore had any impact on the budget, the debt, or the deficit. Until Congress acts, those savings don’t really become real,” stated Robert Shea, a former Republican official at the White House budget office. The White House must navigate the delicate balance between implementing the funding approved by Congress and risking a violation of federal budget law, which could lead to a constitutional crisis.
The administration initially proposed sending a $9.3 billion package of DOGE cuts to Congress, which would include the elimination of the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) and certain public broadcasting funds. This package would only require 51 votes in the Senate to pass, thus circumventing the risk of a Democratic filibuster under a provision in the 1974 budget law that allows expedited rescission requests. Musk has claimed to have identified $160 billion in savings thus far.
However, lawmakers have begun to express concerns about even this modest proposal. For instance, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) has indicated that she would struggle to support cuts to PEPFAR, an initiative aimed at combating HIV/AIDS abroad, especially if the package also targets funding for women’s health initiatives. “It depends on what’s in it precisely,” Collins noted, emphasizing that the Senate could amend any rescission request to better align with their priorities.
Rep. Tom Cole (R-Oklahoma), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, echoed similar sentiments, stressing the importance of ensuring that any proposed cuts would garner adequate political support before submission. “Do you really want to roll out and have a failure?” he questioned, suggesting that the administration must succeed in this endeavor. The obstacles facing the White House underscore the complexities of their top domestic priority: cutting federal spending.
Budget officials have been diligently brainstorming proposals that would provide legal cover for the DOGE cuts, envisioning the $9 billion request as only the initial step. According to insiders, Russell Vought, the director of the Office of Management and Budget, has long speculated that Congress may not approve the package.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky), a well-known fiscal conservative, expressed hope that the Senate could pass such a modest rescission package. “If we can’t pass a $9 billion rescission package, we might as well all pack it up and admit we’re all going to go bankrupt,” Paul remarked. He pointed out the administration's attempt to present the smallest cuts possible to secure a victory while encouraging them to propose additional rescissions.
Rep. Cole believes that the initial focus on USAID funding is the “easiest” route to success. “You got to see how that goes before you decide what else we really can do,” he noted, indicating that any future proposals should be carefully considered.
As the White House awaits the president’s delayed budget request, which is expected to propose steep cuts to various agencies, the need for bipartisan support is paramount. Any appropriations bills will likely require Democratic votes in the Senate, rendering dramatic cuts unlikely. Furthermore, numerous Republican senators have voiced concerns about the unpredictable amendment process that would be initiated by a rescissions vote, which could force members to take uncomfortable positions on contentious issues.
The idea to pass Musk’s proposed cuts originated during a private lunch meeting between lawmakers and Musk in March. Paul and others suggested that the administration should present billions of dollars in DOGE cuts to Congress as a rescission package, which would only need a simple majority to pass in the Senate and might protect the cuts from judicial challenges.
As Musk steps back from his role in the DOGE initiative, he has called on Congress and the Cabinet to take action. “How much pain is the Cabinet and this Congress willing to take?” he posed, emphasizing that significant changes can be achieved but require addressing numerous complaints.
Trump has long advocated for revisiting traditional limitations on his ability to cancel funding appropriated by Congress, suggesting he should utilize “impoundment” techniques to reduce or eliminate spending. His administration has faced criticism for potentially illegal freezes on spending, with various actions challenged in court.
According to estimates from top Democrats on the House and Senate appropriations committees, the Trump administration has frozen or canceled at least $430 billion in funds since taking office. “No American president has ever so flagrantly ignored our nation’s spending laws or so brazenly denied the American people investments they are owed,” stated Sen. Patty Murray (D-Washington) and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Connecticut) in a joint statement.
Many budget experts argue that the administration must adhere to budget laws and either submit cuts for a Congressional vote or abandon efforts to freeze funds without legislative approval. “They should put their money where their mouth has been — submit a rescission package that reflects the work to date of DOGE,” urged Bill Hoagland, senior vice president at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
