Senate Budget Committee presses OMB nominee on past fund impoundments and legal limits

Russell Vought, President Trump’s nominee to again lead the Office of Management and Budget, faced repeated questioning about his prior role in withholding congressionally appropriated funds and whether he would obey the Impoundment Control Act if confirmed.

The issue surfaced early in the hearing when Senator Jeff Merkley, a member of the committee, said Vought “was, at the center of the strategy of impounding funds” and pressed him on whether he would rely on impoundment again rather than the statutory rescission process. Merkley added that Vought had told him privately he was “quite comfortable assuming that the law doesn't matter.”

The matter matters because the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 restricts the executive branch’s ability to withhold or delay spending that Congress has appropriated. Several senators told the committee they see past impoundments tied to Ukraine assistance, which were central to the impeachment proceeding against the prior president, as evidence of a need for a clear commitment from the nominee.

Vought repeatedly declined a simple, unconditional pledge to renounce the impoundment approach. At one point he said the administration would “faithfully uphold the law,” and on other occasions described ongoing legal review: “the president and his team is going to go through a review with our lawyers if confirmed, including the Department of Justice to explore the parameters of the law with regard to the Impoundment Control Act.” He also told Senator Jeff Merkley and others that the executive orders issued on the new administration’s first day were intended as programmatic delays and that rescissions might be put forward by the Office of Legislative Affairs.

Senator Patty Murray pressed for a clearer commitment and said she was “deeply disturbed” that Vought would not renounce impoundment. Senator Ron Wyden entered into the hearing record a Government Accountability Office finding that OMB’s prior actions had violated the Impoundment Control Act and again sought a direct answer; Vought responded that the administration would undertake a legal review and did not provide a categorical commitment beyond following law as interpreted through that review.

Throughout the exchange, senators from both parties warned that any practice of withholding funds appropriated by Congress would undercut trust between the legislative and executive branches. Several members said they expected a direct, unequivocal commitment that congressionally appropriated funds will be distributed unless Congress itself alters the law.

The hearing record remains open for additional submissions. Absent a more categorical pledge from the nominee, impoundment and the scope of the executive’s discretion to delay or withhold appropriations are likely to remain central issues in follow-up questions and in the committee’s deliberations.

Vought’s written and verbal responses, and the committee discussion, leave open the question of how his OMB would approach disputed appropriations if confirmed; senators pressed repeatedly for a plain answer on whether he will follow the Impoundment Control Act as currently interpreted.