Sean Hannity

Well, it depends on the specific funding that we're talking about. But we've identified $160 billion of waste, abuse, of reforms and savings that we are trying to make permanent. And so we will use the Impoundment Control Act, which Congress put in law in the 1970s. We're not big fans of it. We think it's unconstitutional.

Well, it depends on the specific funding that we're talking about. But we've identified $160 billion of waste, abuse, of reforms and savings that we are trying to make permanent. And so we will use the Impoundment Control Act, which Congress put in law in the 1970s. We're not big fans of it. We think it's unconstitutional.

Well, it depends on the specific funding that we're talking about. But we've identified $160 billion of waste, abuse, of reforms and savings that we are trying to make permanent. And so we will use the Impoundment Control Act, which Congress put in law in the 1970s. We're not big fans of it. We think it's unconstitutional.

But there are processes in place that allow us to be able to evade the filibuster in the Senate. And if we can get a majority vote on some of our rescissions bills, we're very happy to work with Congress. Our first rescissions bill on foreign aid and NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcast should go up very soon. And I think that's going to be passed. I really do.

But there are processes in place that allow us to be able to evade the filibuster in the Senate. And if we can get a majority vote on some of our rescissions bills, we're very happy to work with Congress. Our first rescissions bill on foreign aid and NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcast should go up very soon. And I think that's going to be passed. I really do.

But there are processes in place that allow us to be able to evade the filibuster in the Senate. And if we can get a majority vote on some of our rescissions bills, we're very happy to work with Congress. Our first rescissions bill on foreign aid and NPR and the Corporation for Public Broadcast should go up very soon. And I think that's going to be passed. I really do.

We're now also working to think through what are the other things that can go through the various features of the Impoundment Control Act at different parts of the year. And also, impoundment continues to be on the table. We, 200 years of presidents, had the ability to spend less than the congressional appropriation.

We're now also working to think through what are the other things that can go through the various features of the Impoundment Control Act at different parts of the year. And also, impoundment continues to be on the table. We, 200 years of presidents, had the ability to spend less than the congressional appropriation.

We're now also working to think through what are the other things that can go through the various features of the Impoundment Control Act at different parts of the year. And also, impoundment continues to be on the table. We, 200 years of presidents, had the ability to spend less than the congressional appropriation.

The constitutional principle is that Congress puts that ceiling in, but it was never meant to be a floor. And in the aftermath of Watergate, the lowest point of the presidency, Congress stepped in and said, no, we're going to make this a floor and we're going to make it so if we give you $100 million for a

The constitutional principle is that Congress puts that ceiling in, but it was never meant to be a floor. And in the aftermath of Watergate, the lowest point of the presidency, Congress stepped in and said, no, we're going to make this a floor and we're going to make it so if we give you $100 million for a

The constitutional principle is that Congress puts that ceiling in, but it was never meant to be a floor. And in the aftermath of Watergate, the lowest point of the presidency, Congress stepped in and said, no, we're going to make this a floor and we're going to make it so if we give you $100 million for a

apprenticeships and you feel like you could do it for $75 million, we're going to make you spend that extra $25 million. No one in the country operates that way. The country didn't operate that way for 200 years. We don't think it's the right way to approach the federal government from a separation of powers perspective. And that is very much on the table as we move forward with fiscal year 25.

apprenticeships and you feel like you could do it for $75 million, we're going to make you spend that extra $25 million. No one in the country operates that way. The country didn't operate that way for 200 years. We don't think it's the right way to approach the federal government from a separation of powers perspective. And that is very much on the table as we move forward with fiscal year 25.

apprenticeships and you feel like you could do it for $75 million, we're going to make you spend that extra $25 million. No one in the country operates that way. The country didn't operate that way for 200 years. We don't think it's the right way to approach the federal government from a separation of powers perspective. And that is very much on the table as we move forward with fiscal year 25.

So you're asking the question in the middle of our back and forth with Congress, are you willing to pass our rescissions? We want to have that debate. If you're not, We're going to definitely keep these things, I call them executive tools, to reduce spending beneath the appropriation from Congress. Those are very much on the table.

So you're asking the question in the middle of our back and forth with Congress, are you willing to pass our rescissions? We want to have that debate. If you're not, We're going to definitely keep these things, I call them executive tools, to reduce spending beneath the appropriation from Congress. Those are very much on the table.

So you're asking the question in the middle of our back and forth with Congress, are you willing to pass our rescissions? We want to have that debate. If you're not, We're going to definitely keep these things, I call them executive tools, to reduce spending beneath the appropriation from Congress. Those are very much on the table.

I think it's using every leverage point that we possibly can fiscally to make progress. And there's kind of some big, the big moving parts are economic growth numbers, tariff revenues that are coming in. It's discretionary cuts that I just talked about. That $160 billion in the first year over 10 years is $4 trillion of the answer. And it's mandatory reforms.

I think it's using every leverage point that we possibly can fiscally to make progress. And there's kind of some big, the big moving parts are economic growth numbers, tariff revenues that are coming in. It's discretionary cuts that I just talked about. That $160 billion in the first year over 10 years is $4 trillion of the answer. And it's mandatory reforms.