Senate Budget Committee grills Dan Bishop on impoundments, freezes and mass firings during OMB nomination hearing

Dan Bishop, the president’s nominee for deputy director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), told the Senate Budget Committee on Wednesday that he would implement President Trump’s priorities but repeatedly declined to make legal judgments about current OMB actions that senators described as freezes or impoundments of appropriated funds.

Sen. Jeff Merkley, the committee’s ranking member, opened a line of questioning about the legal limits of executive withholding of appropriated funds and asked Bishop directly: “Are you gonna be party to these illegal actions? Are you gonna be party to violations of the Constitution?” Bishop replied that he would not be the office’s legal decision‑maker, saying, “I won’t be making the legal determinations for OMB or for the administration,” and that those determinations would be handled by OMB’s general counsel and others.

Why this matters: senators from both parties pressed Bishop on whether the administration will follow court orders that have instructed agencies to resume spending on programs that committees and courts have said should not be withheld. Lawmakers repeatedly referenced recent litigation and GAO findings and raised concrete examples — including global health programs funded through PEPFAR and an estimated group of 83 Afghan girls in Oman whose support, senators said, is at risk when grants and foreign‑aid contracts are paused.

Bishop’s answers and committee exchanges

Bishop, who currently serves as a senior adviser at OMB, told senators he would implement the president’s agenda if confirmed and would work with Director Russell Vought. He also said he would comply with court orders when they are directed at OMB’s jurisdiction. In response to Sen. Chris Van Hollen’s direct question — “Do you commit, if you’re confirmed for this position, to comply with any court orders directed toward the jurisdiction of the Office of Management and Budget?” — Bishop answered, “Yes, Senator.”

At the same time, Bishop said he has studied the history of presidential impoundment and is “disinclined to believe” Congress could entirely remove the executive’s power to impound funds; he emphasized he was not offering a final legal view on the current actions. Several senators pressed him on an apparent change in his prior public statements about the Impoundment Control Act of 1974; Bishop said his views had matured with additional study and reiterated that legal strategy and formal legal determinations would be made by counsel and the director.

Frozen funds, foreign aid and court orders

Multiple senators described specific funds and programs that courts have ordered unfrozen but that remain paused, and they sought Bishop’s help, if confirmed, to ensure the administration follows court directions. Sen. Lindsey Graham highlighted a foreign‑aid example in his opening remarks: “There are 83 girls in Oman from Afghanistan that we’re supporting. They’re gonna run out of money in March,” he said, urging that humanitarian programs be protected while OMB reviews budgets and contracts. Other lawmakers pointed to headlines and agency actions involving HIV and TB aid, scientific research, and other grants that courts or GAO had said should not be withheld.

Federal workforce and mass firings

A large portion of senators’ questioning centered on personnel actions instituted after OMB and White House directives and on reported rapid dismissals at multiple agencies. Senators asked whether Musk‑led or consultant‑driven reorganizations had led to indiscriminate terminations and whether OMB had taken corrective steps after courts and the Merit Systems Protection Board found some dismissals unlawful. Bishop said he was not involved in personnel decisions in other agencies, that he had not exercised management authority in the deputy role while still a nominee, and that OMB is not the agency that handles personnel actions (that responsibility lies with agency human‑resources offices and OPM). He offered to “look into” several specific situations cited by senators and to make information available.

Regulatory reform, process improvement and other policy items

Senators also asked about regulatory reform and the REINS Act, Project 2025 proposals and agency process improvements. Bishop said he supports regulatory review as an OMB adviser and expressed willingness to pursue process‑improvement tools such as Lean Six Sigma with senators who raised the idea. He said the president’s priorities would determine his focus if confirmed.

Other concrete items raised during questioning included questions about the timing of Renewable Volume Obligations (RVOs) for biofuels, claims that Bonneville Power Administration staff were wrongly dismissed, and concerns about Social Security staffing levels and deadlines for benefit delivery. Bishop said he would follow up on agency‑specific operational questions and repeatedly emphasized he was not the administration’s legal adviser.

What the hearing produced

No formal committee action or vote on the nomination occurred at the hearing’s close; members told Bishop the record would remain open for additional statements and written questions. Throughout the hearing, Republican senators pressed Bishop on plans to cut spending and eliminate waste, while Democratic senators pressed him on legal compliance and the practical consequences of rapid personnel and spending changes. Bishop said he would “work with the director” and that he would “implement President Trump’s priorities” if confirmed, while also deferring legal determinations to OMB counsel and court processes.

Looking ahead: senators from both parties left open avenues for follow‑up. Several asked for written answers and additional briefings; others warned that OMB must act promptly if courts direct that funds be released. The committee record is open for additional submissions.