A congressional vote to codify DOGE’s spending cuts into law wouldn’t just be a victory for Elon Musk. It could end up being an even bigger win for the Republicans who have expressed unease with DOGE’s massive layoffs across federal agencies.
The renewed effort, led in part by Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), has attracted attention from GOP senators who are particularly vulnerable to the political backlash over these layoffs and the haphazard nature of the DOGE operation.
The process, known as rescission, would allow Hill Republicans to directly address the problems that DOGE is creating for them back home. It would give GOP lawmakers the final say on whether a certain program or initiative should be cut, a key reprieve for the Republicans raising alarms about cuts to essential services.
“We started off good but we’re losing altitude,” Graham said. “Politically, now’s the time to start putting in legislation the accomplishments of DOGE and deal with the problems.”
In a brief interview, Senate Majority Leader John Thune said there’s “a lot of interest” in a rescissions vote within his conference. But Thune noted that it needs to originate from the White House, which needs to “prove they’re real,” referring to the proposed cuts.
Graham told us he spoke with a White House official Wednesday night, just hours after Musk attended a Senate GOP lunch. Graham said “we’re onto something,” but he declined to elaborate.
A win-win? Musk was jumping for joy on Wednesday when he learned during the closed-door lunch that Republicans could vote to codify proposed spending cuts without requiring Democratic votes.
For Musk, this would ensure some level of permanence for the spending cuts and possibly shield DOGE from the myriad of lawsuits challenging its legal authority.
And as Graham alluded to, crafting a rescission package would create an oversight mechanism for DOGE, which is run by young and inexperienced staffers who, for example, errantly cut an Ebola prevention program, as Musk recently admitted.
“We’re all looking for ways for us to do our job,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) said. “I also think it’s important for people who are a little bit confused about [Musk’s] role — to better define whatever his role is.”
Later Thursday, President Donald Trump nodded to some of those concerns by telling his Cabinet officials that they, not Musk, have ultimate decision-making power on layoffs at their departments and agencies. Thune was among those suggesting Musk shouldn’t be overruling Cabinet secretaries.
Drawbacks:By definition, rescissions would reverse funding that has already been appropriated. But such a vote wouldn’t come without risks. And success isn’t guaranteed.
First, it could be a politically difficult vote for vulnerable Republicans. Their Democratic opponents could use a “yes” vote to tie them directly to DOGE. And they’d still have to answer for the programs they vote to cut. Senate and House GOP leaders will have to consider this.
Another risk is that it could create a dispute between the White House and the Hill if GOP leaders try to veto certain proposed rescissions. It also adds yet another tricky task to the Republican leadership’s plate at a time when they’re already facing headwinds with budget reconciliation.
But as Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) noted, approving a rescission package could make it easier to pass a reconciliation bill because it could obviate deficit hawks’ complaints that the bill doesn’t cut enough spending, a key divide between the House and Senate.
The last time a GOP-controlled Senate tried to pass a rescission package, the effort failed because two Republicans voted against it. But that was back in 2018 when Senate Republicans had a smaller majority. Today, they could only lose up to three GOP votes. But with such thin margins in the House, getting near-unanimous support would be exceedingly difficult.
Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine), who voted against that 2018 package, said identifying spending cuts requires “a careful analysis” rather than an “across-the-board approach.”
