In late June, Russell Vought, Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), was challenged by members of the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government (FSGG) in an oversight hearing. Questions largely focused on OMB’s recent proposed rule around federal financial assistance (see FABBS coverage here), with several subcommittee members referring to the rule as an unconstitutional power grab.
In his opening remarks, Representative David Joyce (R-OH), Chair of the Subcommittee, stressed the importance of OMB, but stated, “We need to work together to ensure that federal funds are being used as Congress intended, even if the administration does not agree with the intent of certain programs.” Representative Steny Hoyer (D-MD), Ranking Member of the Subcommittee, noted it would have been more useful to hold this hearing before the Fiscal Year 2027 (FY27) FSGG appropriations bill markup and said, “I hope today’s hearing will be a reminder to Director Vought that every administration is accountable to Congress.”
Representative Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), Ranking Member of the full House Appropriations Committee (HAC), also provided an opening statement, in which she did not sugarcoat her frustration for Vought or the actions of OMB during the second Trump Administration. DeLauro emphasized the danger of OMB’s recent proposed funding rule, calling it, “an attempt to subject all federal funding to a political litmus test.” She continued, “It is cancel culture for cancer research, weaponization of bureaucracy.”
Vought’s opening statement was full of partisan remarks, as he commented repeatedly on the “failed leadership” of the Biden administration. He touted the Presidential Budget Request’s (PBR) removal of funding for “biased, woke programming,” such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and the United States Agency for International Development (USAID). The only funding measure Vought explained was the 42 percent increase — to $1.5 trillion — for defense, claiming it is a result of the president’s directive to build new ships, planes, drones, and more.
At numerous points during questioning, both subcommittee members and Vought raised their voices. Representative Mark Pocan (D-WI) asked Vought if he agreed that multiple studies have shown people have died as a result of cuts to programs like USAID. Vought refused to answer directly, even when prompted to respond either yes or no, saying, “I do not concur with the validity of those studies.” Pocan then provided two examples of children who have died and engaged in a shouting match with Vought, who still refused to directly answer Pocan’s questions.
Tensions also rose during DeLauro’s questioning, as she noted “One of the striking aspects of this proposal is it attempts to put the OMB Director at the center of all decision making,” to which Vought interrupted and said “not true.” DeLauro voiced her concern about the lack of public criteria for grant decisions, and Vought said, “Congresswoman, you are misconstruing the proposal.” DeLauro then stated, “Political appointees are explicitly forbidden from deferring to peer reviewers or routinely ratifying their recommendations. This is in the 412-page document. But maybe you think people were not going to read it.”
DeLauro closed the meeting with a warning as the midterms inch closer: “No President has the right to just violate the United States Constitution. It’s wrong, and we’re not going to continue to let it happen.” The outcome of the midterm elections may very well shift power from Republicans to Democrats in one or both congressional chambers, which could be incredibly consequential for Vought and OMB’s proposed regulation changes.
On the Senate side, all 47 members of the Democratic caucus sent a letter to Vought on July 1, expressing strong opposition to the proposed regulations. The letter, similar to many comments during the hearing, points out the proposal’s unchecked power grab and the threat posed to potentially life-saving research. FABBS has also seen a not-yet final Dear Colleague letter from Senator Jim Banks (R-IN), voicing support for the proposed rule. It is unclear if this letter will be made public or which congresspeople will sign on.
Republican Senator Susan Collins (ME), Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, recently penned her own letter to Vought, commenting on the impacts the rule is likely to have on small and rural communities and on scientific and biomedical research. Collins specifically highlighted the unreasonably short comment period (just 45 days) and wrote, “I have heard from numerous stakeholders that the current comment period is inadequate, and therefore, I request that OMB extend the comment period for the rule by no less than 90 days.” It is important to note that Vought flatly rejected the possibility of an extension during the House FSGG oversight hearing.
On June 16, FABBS hosted a webinar for members to better understand the proposed regulations. Following the webinar, we provided templates for responses and other helpful resources in our toolkit. FABBS is finalizing our own comments while tracking responses. At press time, over 93,000 comments have been received. For those who have already or plan to submit comments before the July 13 deadline, we will hold another webinar on July 24 to provide an action plan to ensure your comments get into the hands of key policymakers. Please register for the webinar here.
