Push to Vote on Musk’s DOGE Cuts Relies on Seldom Used Tactic

President Donald Trump’s best chance to make sweeping spending cuts relies on a maneuver he attempted unsuccessfully in 2018.

Congressional Republicans have started planning to vote on a package of “rescissions,” using a 51-year-old law that allows the president to propose a clawback of unspent federal dollars. The rarely used process would codify Elon Musk’s legally tenuous spending cuts, which have drawn a series of lawsuits. It would require approval by both chambers of Congress, but Republicans could bypass a filibuster, needing only 51 votes in the Senate.

Trump has a shaky history with rescissions. In 2018, he asked Congress to rescind more than $15 billion. The proposal narrowly failed in the Senate, where Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) — who now chairs the Appropriations Committee — voted against it.

Constitutional Battles

Trump’s ability to seek a funding clawback is detailed by the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974. Trump and his budget director, Russell Vought, have said the law is unconstitutional, complaining it unfairly restricts the president’s ability to unilaterally cut funding.

The law allows the president to withhold funding for up to 45 legislative days, if he proposes rescissions to Congress. If Congress does not approve the rescission within that time, any withheld funds must be made available.

The bill wouldn’t be subject to a filibuster, but lawmakers can amend the proposal to add or subtract possible cuts.

So far, Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency has bypassed the rescissions process, instead claiming the White House can deny agencies funding without the approval of Congress. Musk claims $100 billion in savings already — though the project’s data has included errors.

To make those savings permanent — and legally take budget authority away from federal agencies — Congress needs to act.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) urged Musk Wednesday to send lawmakers a rescissions proposal. Members of the House Oversight Committee’s DOGE panel also discussed the process in closed-door meeting with Musk.

Collins hasn’t commented directly on the idea of a rescissions vote, and the White House has yet to send a proposal. She has voiced skepticism about Trump’s approach to spending, saying in a January statement that the broad funding freeze “was overreaching and created unnecessary confusion and consternation.”

A Mixed History

There are only two major examples of a presidential rescission package being considered under the Impoundment Control Act’s process.

The most recent was Trump’s failed attempt in 2018, in which then-Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) joined Collins in opposing the measure. That measure called for $5.1 billion in rescissions from the Children’s Health Insurance Fund. It also drew criticism from Republicans for proposed cuts to highway funds and Appalachian economic development.

Former President George H.W. Bush successfully used the process in 1992 with a series of proposals adding up to $7.9 billion in rescissions. Lawmakers ultimately passed their own package of rescissions that didn’t exactly match Bush’s proposal, but used the law’s provisions for quick consideration.

Rescissions are also regularly written into annual government-funding bills, separate from the process outlined in the Impoundment Control Act. And lawmakers negotiated a $20 billion rescission of Internal Revenue Service funds as part of the 2023 debt-limit law.