Sean Hannity

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.

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.

And so we need more than $1.6 trillion, but $1.6 trillion is a sizable amount of what is needed to get us back towards balance. And so a combination of all of those different moving parts will get us there over time. We can do a lot of it executively. We're going to need Congress on more of these, particularly on the mandatory side of the reforms and the savings.

And so we need more than $1.6 trillion, but $1.6 trillion is a sizable amount of what is needed to get us back towards balance. And so a combination of all of those different moving parts will get us there over time. We can do a lot of it executively. We're going to need Congress on more of these, particularly on the mandatory side of the reforms and the savings.

And so we need more than $1.6 trillion, but $1.6 trillion is a sizable amount of what is needed to get us back towards balance. And so a combination of all of those different moving parts will get us there over time. We can do a lot of it executively. We're going to need Congress on more of these, particularly on the mandatory side of the reforms and the savings.

And we'll just keep using leverage points to move forward But I think when you look at what we've done on the tariffs, even what is already right now in place, not just kind of being negotiated as part of the reciprocal tariffs, those have sizable impact over 10 years that we never really assumed for in years past.

And we'll just keep using leverage points to move forward But I think when you look at what we've done on the tariffs, even what is already right now in place, not just kind of being negotiated as part of the reciprocal tariffs, those have sizable impact over 10 years that we never really assumed for in years past.

And we'll just keep using leverage points to move forward But I think when you look at what we've done on the tariffs, even what is already right now in place, not just kind of being negotiated as part of the reciprocal tariffs, those have sizable impact over 10 years that we never really assumed for in years past.

And... And... Wait.