President Donald Trump reaffirmed his commitment Friday to making permanent the sweeping cuts initiated by Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), even as the Senate wrestles with legislation that could slow that process down.
“We’re totally committed to making the DOGE cuts permanent,” Trump said during a press event, according to the Washington Times. “We want to get our great, big, beautiful bill finished and done.”
The “Big Beautiful Bill,” currently under scrutiny in the Senate, includes $9.4 billion in initial cuts. But Trump confirmed that this is just the beginning. “We put some of this into the bill, but most of it’s going to come later. … It’s hundreds of billions of dollars.”
Those “hundreds of billions” refer to the estimated $157 billion in proposed cuts DOGE identified in various federal departments—waste and bloat that Trump says should have been eliminated years ago.
Among the cuts already enacted administratively: $101 million in DEI-related contracts at the Department of Education and $59 million for hotel rooms in New York City for illegal immigrants. “The landlord never made the kind of money that he made in the last short period of time,” Trump said, slamming the inefficiencies and backdoor profiteering that DOGE has targeted.
Despite the momentum, some Republican senators are balking. Sen. Susan Collins (R-ME) said she would not back all of DOGE’s recommendations. “For example, the $8.3 billion in foreign aid cuts—if that includes the women’s global health initiative as is rumored, if it cuts PEPFAR as it may—I don’t see those passing,” she told the Washington Post.
Collins emphasized the need to see the exact language before passing judgment. “Until we see precisely what it is, I think it’s really hard to predict.”
Others, like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), are pushing to make the DOGE cuts official. “It would be a big mistake if we don’t,” Graham told Politico. “It’s the one way to make DOGE cuts real.”
Budget Director Russell Vought suggested that if Congress stalls, the administration might go another route: impoundment. This would involve the president refusing to spend money that Congress appropriates—a power that has long been controversial and legally disputed.
“We have executive tools; we have impoundment,” Vought said, arguing that the Impoundment Control Act, which is often cited as preventing this action, may not actually be constitutional.
That declaration could set up a constitutional battle between the executive and legislative branches. Critics like Rep. Mike Simpson (R-ID) aren’t thrilled. “That’s like a line-item veto, and I think it’s illegal. That will be a challenge, for sure.”
For now, the Trump administration appears undeterred. With a record of cost-cutting and a clear desire to rein in Washington’s excess, President Trump is signaling that the bureaucratic gravy train is running out of steam—whether Congress likes it or not.