Sean Davis

I think basically every fight is more potent when you have your permanent cabinet people in there. You're just able to do more things with a full Senate confirmed director than you can do with an acting director, as good as that person might be.

I think basically every fight is more potent when you have your permanent cabinet people in there. You're just able to do more things with a full Senate confirmed director than you can do with an acting director, as good as that person might be.

And it's actually why it's so important to get Russ in there is that Trump needs to have someone who he's picked, who he knows, who he's worked with and who he knows he can trust. to do all this. And when it comes to controlling spending, you know, there's going to be fights between OMB and Congress, like knock down, drag out fights about constitutional prerogatives.

And it's actually why it's so important to get Russ in there is that Trump needs to have someone who he's picked, who he knows, who he's worked with and who he knows he can trust. to do all this. And when it comes to controlling spending, you know, there's going to be fights between OMB and Congress, like knock down, drag out fights about constitutional prerogatives.

Because over the years, you know, Congress has given up tons and tons and tons and tons of power to OMB because they don't actually want to be held accountable for the spending. They want to be able to do their press release and do the ribbon cutting and then be able to blame the administration for this or that getting spent.

Because over the years, you know, Congress has given up tons and tons and tons and tons of power to OMB because they don't actually want to be held accountable for the spending. They want to be able to do their press release and do the ribbon cutting and then be able to blame the administration for this or that getting spent.

And and what's happened is because of decades, if not longer of them just handing over their power, OMB has a whole lot of power right now, not just to to audit spending, but to direct and even impound it, which is really important.

And and what's happened is because of decades, if not longer of them just handing over their power, OMB has a whole lot of power right now, not just to to audit spending, but to direct and even impound it, which is really important.

Yeah, so it was the Impoundment Control Act. I don't remember the exact year that it was passed. I'm going to say it was probably the mid-70s. I have 1974 in my head for whatever reason. And what it did was it constrained the ability of the executive to stop the flow of funding, notwithstanding congressional appropriation. And for...

Yeah, so it was the Impoundment Control Act. I don't remember the exact year that it was passed. I'm going to say it was probably the mid-70s. I have 1974 in my head for whatever reason. And what it did was it constrained the ability of the executive to stop the flow of funding, notwithstanding congressional appropriation. And for...

probably 200 years, 150 to 200 years, it was just accepted that when Congress appropriated money, that was meant to be a ceiling. It was not meant to be a floor. That if Congress says, I want you to spend up to a billion dollars on this thing, that was giving the administration the flexibility to spend that amount.

probably 200 years, 150 to 200 years, it was just accepted that when Congress appropriated money, that was meant to be a ceiling. It was not meant to be a floor. That if Congress says, I want you to spend up to a billion dollars on this thing, that was giving the administration the flexibility to spend that amount.

that it was not really until this Impoundment Control Act was enacted that people decided that appropriations were actually statutory floors, that the executive had no choice, no flexibility to execute on these for anything less than whatever the bare minimum was that was appropriated. And it's actually a big constitutional fight.

that it was not really until this Impoundment Control Act was enacted that people decided that appropriations were actually statutory floors, that the executive had no choice, no flexibility to execute on these for anything less than whatever the bare minimum was that was appropriated. And it's actually a big constitutional fight.

You're going to have people who believe more in executive authority saying, Hey, the president had this power for 200 years, and it wasn't until this unconstitutional law was passed in the wake of Watergate that they decided suddenly the executive couldn't do that anymore.

You're going to have people who believe more in executive authority saying, Hey, the president had this power for 200 years, and it wasn't until this unconstitutional law was passed in the wake of Watergate that they decided suddenly the executive couldn't do that anymore.

And I think impoundment is really going to become the big battle over the next four years in the Trump administration because we have a debt that's almost $40 trillion. We're almost hitting the debt limit. Congress has shown no interest in anything even remotely resembling impoundment. spending restraint.

And I think impoundment is really going to become the big battle over the next four years in the Trump administration because we have a debt that's almost $40 trillion. We're almost hitting the debt limit. Congress has shown no interest in anything even remotely resembling impoundment. spending restraint.

And so I think this impoundment stuff is going to end up being the big constitutional fight, at least on the spending front, that we're going to see for the next couple of years.

And so I think this impoundment stuff is going to end up being the big constitutional fight, at least on the spending front, that we're going to see for the next couple of years.