Senate Republicans have expressed their disappointment regarding President Trump’s controversial decision to advocate for a $5 billion “pocket withdrawal.”
Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD) voiced concerns that this withdrawal could give Democrats a reason to resist the fundraising law, potentially threatening the government’s ability to avoid a shutdown after September 30.
“This isn’t just a good move; it might encourage our Democrat colleagues to avoid a bipartisan spending process. If they can use this as an excuse, it could create significant challenges for us,” he cautioned.
He emphasized, “I don’t see this as a helpful idea—it could deter my Democrat counterparts from collaborating with us on spending.”
Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a senior Budget Committee member, was vocal against Trump’s circumventing Congress to support funding without a formal vote.
“Only Congress has the constitutional duty to fund the government, and attempts to divert resources outside the established spending process jeopardize that duty,” she stated on social media.
She warned that unilateral actions could lead to chaos within the entire funding framework.
Sen. Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), also on the Budget Committee, expressed uncertainty about the legality of the pocket withdrawal and urged the White House to let Congress handle funding matters.
“We need to maintain appropriate standards and strengthen our spending process,” Capito noted. “Whether it’s legal or illegal remains to be seen; it’s probably something for the courts to decide.”
She reiterated, “I believe the appropriate route is through our budget bill.”
Last week, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) voiced her strong disapproval of the administration’s actions regarding the pocket withdrawal.
“Withdrawing funds allocated without Congressional consent clearly violates the law,” she commented.
Sen. Kevin Cramer (R-ND) raised concerns about the division of power between the executive and legislative branches, noting that the President has already grabbed funds appropriated by Congress, leaving little room for legislative response before the fiscal year ends.
“Are you worried about separation of powers? I am. Congress must defend its role,” he remarked. “However, we do have a strong presidency.”
Republicans in North Dakota questioned whether taking on Congress was a wise use of Trump’s political capital.
“Spending political capital on various fronts might not lead to a meaningful victory,” one senator reflected. “I’m not sure it’s worth it.”
Sen. John Thune (R-SD) indicated that Republican senators could back Trump’s proposal to cut $5 billion from the State Department and the U.S. International Development Agency.
According to Thune, traditional spending processes should be utilized to achieve these cuts. He pointed out the reliance on a year-end omnibus package to get the job done.
“There are usually aspects of rescues that many agree on… Ultimately, following the right process is vital,” he expressed.
He added that they aim to move essential bills forward to mitigate government shutdown risks.
This summer, the Senate passed three bills funding military construction, agriculture, and legislative areas before their four-week August recess.
Thune revealed his intention to push additional spending bills through by month’s end, indicating he wouldn’t negotiate spending strategies with Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer (NY) behind closed doors.
Schumer and House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries (NY) have encouraged Thune and Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) to reach a spending agreement for “four-corner” negotiations among top leaders in both chambers.
Thune has a different strategy, preferring the spending bill to go directly to the floor without behind-the-scenes discussions.
“We’re committed to a bipartisan process for funding the government. Chuck has his method of writing these bills in private; we believe that discussions should happen publicly,” Thune stated.
Jeffries asserted that House Democrats would oppose any funding bill not inclusive of their input in its creation.
“We won’t endorse a one-sided spending bill that harms Americans daily,” he said.
Jeffries communicated directly to the Speaker last week expressing the need for cooperation.
While aiming for common ground, the Democratic leader made it clear they would oppose partisan funding efforts.
Schumer, in a letter to his colleagues, warned that a government shutdown is more probable if Trump proceeds with funding cuts without Congressional consent.
“As the funding deadline approaches, Republicans seem poised to lead us into closure again,” he wrote.
“It’s apparent that they favor chaos over governance and have leaned more towards partisanship than partnership with this pocket withdrawal,” he added.
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) revisited President Jimmy Carter’s proposals from 1977.
Grassley noted that while the government’s Accountability Office deemed pocket withdrawals legal in 1977, its perspective has shifted since then.
“Carter did it with GAO’s endorsement back then, but their stance has changed, so we’re in a bit of a gray area,” he acknowledged.
Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), a senior member of the Budget Committee, cautioned that the proposed pocket withdrawal could significantly hinder the likelihood of Democrats agreeing to prevent government shutdowns.
He emphasized that a failure to assure no withdrawal would undermine respect for the spending process.
Durbin urged his Republican colleagues to reject the President’s proposition to uphold the spending process collectively.
“If we’re determined to maintain respect for the spending process, Congress needs to band together against overreach from the President,” he stated.
