As President Trump champions his “big and beautiful” budget proposal, there’s a palpable tension brewing. On one hand, there are those who feel he’s either being betrayed or is simply failing politically by allowing unelected officials to become major players in Congress. Before the new budget can advance—already a process in motion—it seems a change is necessary.
Trump’s campaign focused on reducing federal roles in sensitive issues like abortion. Personally, I’m not entirely aligned with his views on life and death matters, yet I really respect his willingness to tackle these hard conversations. Cutting federal support to organizations like Planned Parenthood? That’s no small feat.
The budget put forth by the House seems to be a lifeline against the longstanding presence of abortion providers in US healthcare—a historical concern for Trump, Speaker Mike Johnson, and the GOP. Yet, the Senate seems to have stumbled, following rules that others appear not to. It’s frustrating to see the funding cuts last only a year now.
Certain “major Republican-backed provisions” from this so-called “big beautiful bill” faced significant setbacks in the Senate. What’s baffling is that it wasn’t an elected representative who made those calls; it was, instead, the Senate parliamentarian—an unelected figure pulling the strings.
This role has been around since the 1930s to help navigate laws and legislative processes. However, it’s important to note it wasn’t established by the Founding Fathers to critique Congressional choices and isn’t even mentioned in the Constitution. Harry Reid, back in 2012, made headlines for appointing McDonough to this position, establishing her long-term influence.
McDonough has deep ties in Washington and over the years received recognition from influential Republicans. She’s even been consulted during contentious electoral moments, like the Bush vs. Gore saga. This complex web points to the heart of the challenge: senators are often seen as enforcers of a system rather than true representatives. It’s often more about serving party leaders than the public.
Such moments aren’t new. Back in 1975, Vice President Nelson Rockefeller overturned parliamentary decisions during a budget showdown. Even in more recent history, leaders like Trent Lott and Mitch McConnell have taken measures to modify rules to favor their agendas. This brings us back to today: why didn’t Senate leaders assert more control concerning the House funding bill?
During recent debates, a few Republicans expressed concerns over the inviolability of Congress by unelected officials. One representative even questioned the authority of a bureaucrat, appointed years ago, to dictate the limitations on Trump’s grand proposal. Another senator echoed this sentiment, highlighting public dissatisfaction with a system that empowers unelected administrators over elected officials.
This situation seems counterproductive. The one-year funding cut feels more like a hurdle than a solution, particularly as it intersects with an upcoming election cycle focused on abortion issues. If the Republicans genuinely want to remain in power, they’re going to need a different strategy. It begs the question: why are they still relying on someone whose decisions block Trump’s agenda?
If change doesn’t happen now, it’s plausible that the political landscape could shift significantly by 2026, impacted by public sentiment.
Christan Hawkins, who leads Students for American Life, has a podcast called “Christan Hawkins is showing the show.”.
