While Democrats didn’t quite succeed in making the hearing a spectacle, some members made Vought squirm.
This article originally appeared in Watchdog Weekly. Read it here.
Last week, Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought appeared before the House and Senate Budget committees for the first time during his tenure. As we argued last week, both hearings were a rare opportunity for Congress to shine the light on a notoriously shadowy figure, especially given Vought’s persistent ducking and overall disdain for Congressional authority. It wasn’t exactly the spectacle we hoped for—Vought will likely remain an unknown name to the vast majority of Americans despite having a hand in nearly all of their hardship caused by this administration.
Still, Vought’s discomfort when fielding challenging questions from Democratic members was a reminder that even villains squirm and deflect when confronted with the consequences of their callousness. It’s important for the ostensible opposition party to think of its oversight responsibility as dynamic, elevating and circulating the most notable hits from the hearings so these moments are not lost to time, while also developing the case for future accountability measures.
Vought is not just an important figure in this administration. He is both an architect and enactor of the right wing’s longstanding aims to degrade the administrative state such that it can no longer protect people from powerful corporations and individuals. Moreover, Vought embodies so many key political trends—he really reflects the epitome of the modern generic Republican in both ideology and manner, unlike his boss. And as such, he could be made into an enduring symbol of corporate servility mixed with lawless Christian nationalism.
It’s clear that Democrats in Congress recognize Vought’s substantive villainy, but their success in enlightening constituents of this reality remains an open question. Considering this ideology will persist long after Trump’s presidency concludes, those who oppose it ought to make Vought the public figurehead of the destruction of public services. A nervous vampire can help focus a counter-narrative that demonstrates to the public how a well-funded and resourced civil service will improve their quality of life. To that end, we’ve collected a few of the exchanges from the hearings that deserve more publicity.
House Budget Committee Hearing
To kick off Wednesday’s hearing, protestors interrupted Vought’s opening statement, chanting “PEPFAR Saves Lives, Spend The Money!” Under Vought’s direction, the administration has withheld billions in congressionally appropriated funding for the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR). PEPFAR! A program that once had strong backing from the religious right, as well as centrists and Democrats.
In our suggested questions for Vought, we recommended members of congress ask how Vought can justify the hundreds of thousands of deaths likely caused by DOGE’s destruction of USAID. Congresswoman Bonnie Watson Coleman (D-NJ) did just that. Vought’s response was indicative of the administration’s refusal to acknowledge any dissenting views or consequences of its actions, handwaving away the study Watson Coleman cited because it came from Harvard before flippantly adding that they could have gotten more children killed if they wanted to.
Representative Balint (D-VT) questioned Vought about the explosion in defense spending proposed by his and Trump’s budget. The administration aims to spend $1,500,000,000,000 (if your eyes are watering… that means 1.5 TRILLION dollars) on defense while cutting 10% of non-defense spending. As Balint points out, this comes as people are struggling to pay for basic necessities like healthcare. Vought, for his part, tells us not to believe our lying eyes, claiming “This President has been a person who has campaigned and led for peace and against endless war.” In this administration, war is peace … where have I heard that before?
Representative McGarvey (D-KY) grilled Vought regarding his proposal to zero-out the Low Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP), which helps nearly 6 million households afford their bills and protects them from extreme temperatures in the summer and winter. Unable to defend the merits of the ghoulish proposal, Vought turned to a favorite talking point on the right: claim every program you loathe is rife with fraud. We now have, on record, the administration’s budget director classifying low income seniors as a bunch of fraudsters. Is that the position of the White House?
Next, Representative Amo (D-RI) asked Vought if he believed hungry children should be fed. Vought replied, “Yes, and they are.” Amo correctly noted that the government shutdown put thousands of children at risk of going hungry, but the problem runs much deeper.
Vought’s budget proposes a $1.4 billion cut to fruit and vegetable benefits. The Republican trifecta already cut millions from the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) through the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last year. Even before the administration took over, over 750,000 children were in very low food security households, meaning “normal eating patterns of one or more household members were disrupted and food intake was reduced at times during the year.” A Purdue study in November showed this is likely only getting worse, as food insecurity rose to 16% that month including 46% of SNAP participants. Maybe Trump and Vought really do believe that no child should go hungry, but their actions indicate a contentment with that being the case for, at least, hundreds of thousands of children.
We also urged members of congress to probe Vought’s decimation of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). As the agency’s acting director, Vought has neutered its power, in service of corporate criminals and scofflaws, even while consumers fall victim to their scams, fraud, and abuse. Thanks to 22 dropped enforcement cases and abandoned rulemaking efforts, the gutting of the CFPB has cost consumers an estimated $19 billion in just one year. Representative Jayapal asked the logical question, “Why are you protecting big corporations instead of consumers?”
Senate Budget Committee Hearing
On Thursday, Vought appeared before the Senate Budget Committee. There, Senator Wyden grilled Vought on the administration’s disregard for wildfire prevention and firefighting efforts. As Wyden noted, the Forest Service lost 1,400 firefighters last year as part of the thousands who took DOGE’s deferred resignation or early retirement efforts. Vought said Trump “cares a lot about” wildfire prevention. Then why, at the start of April, did the administration move to close 57 of 77 Forest Service research facilities that help monitor and plan for wildfires, among other natural threats to forests? Actions speak louder than words. But words to communicate the unnecessary risk to rural America are necessary for political accountability.
Last but not least, Senator Padilla focused on Vought’s vow to leave federal workers “in trauma.” The administration has made tremendous progress toward achieving this aim, through DOGE cuts, funding freezes, and reductions in force. All those who rely on federal services, along with civil servants themselves, have paid a deep price. Padilla simply asked Vought to grade his own performance in achieving this goal. Surprisingly, Vought didn’t seem too proud of his own legacy—or perhaps he’s now realized that the American people don’t want to wreck their government—and dodged the question.
In conducting Congressional oversight, the hearing itself should only be one step in the process. Democrats need a communications strategy to amplify their most noteworthy questions and ensure their messages reach the people who are most affected by Vought’s destruction. Some messaging has broken through—Vought’s inability to justify the defense increase or provide any accounting for the cost of Trump’s war against Iran are damning—but there’s much more meat on the bone. Poor Kentuckians relying on LIHEAP funding need to hear Vought call them fraudsters. SNAP recipients struggling to get their children a nutritious meal need to hear Vought say their kids are eating plenty, thank you very much. Service members ripped off by Navy Federal Credit Union who saw their $80 million settlement voided by Vought need to hear him claim his actions are saving taxpayers money.
After all, if a government official testifies before Congress and nobody hears it, did it really make a sound?