OMB Director Vought before Congress – 2027 Budget

OMB Director Vought before Congress – 2027 Budget

Listen:

• mediaBrew Media Player: ( 54 Min. mp3)
• Default Device Player: ( 54 Min. mp3)

Ms. Jayapal, my classmate from the great state of Washington, for five minutes. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. Welcome, Mr. Vogt.

Despite President Trump’s promise to lower prices on day one, consumer sentiment plummeted to its lowest level on record last week. Gas prices are at a record high in Seattle, diesel is now over $7, and families are feeling this every time they go to the grocery store. Meanwhile, fraud reports have only gone up, and efforts to hold big corporations accountable have just disappeared.

So congratulations, Mr. Vogt. You and Donald Trump have managed to successfully tank the futures of millions of Americans. Now Republicans so-called one big beautiful bill, which I notice our colleagues have literally changed the name of because it is so unpopular, it is not beautiful to strip healthcare from millions of Americans.

That bill costs $4.7 trillion and is expected to make up 20% of the next decade’s deficit. And it’s all to pay for tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans and corporations. The Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy just published a report that shows that Trump’s policies are a tax increase for all Americans except the wealthiest 5%.

So for 95%, those policies are a tax increase. Do you know, Mr. Vogt, how many of the largest corporations in America paid absolutely nothing in federal income tax in 2025? Not off the top of my head, but our view is that the tax policy administration… Let me just tell you, Mr. Vogt, reclaiming my time, let me just tell you the number of corporations, large corporations that paid absolutely zero in federal tax was 88 at least that we know of, including Tesla, which paid zero on almost $5.7 billion of income, as well as Coinbase, Citigroup, CVS Health, and Palantir. And those companies together had over $105 billion in profits.

Now meanwhile, Mr. Vogt, what’s the average income tax paid by Americans? Look, Congresswoman, this bill that you are opposed to, that you voted against… Do you know the answer to my question? Because I get to ask the questions here. So I’m asking you what the average income tax rate is that’s paid by Americans. And I’m suggesting that you were not a part of keeping tax rates low.

So you don’t know. It’s 14.5%. So while all these corporations paid nothing, average Americans are paying 14.5%. Now, are you aware that thanks to stripping health care from Americans, the middle 60% of Americans will pay $900 more on average than before Trump came in and created chaos with tariffs and health care and tax law that benefited the wealthiest? You can just say yes or no. The administration did not strip health care.

And in fact, we provided $50 billion for rural health care that you voted against. In the president’s budget request, you state that, quote, it ensures that every taxpayer dollar makes Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous. So please answer yes or no to these questions.

According to one survey, one in six, that’s 17%, returning ACA marketplace enrollees say they are not confident that they will be able to afford their premiums this year. Does that make Americans stronger and more prosperous? It certainly makes it more prosperous to have a health care system that ensures that… So you’re okay with all these Americans not being able to afford their health care premiums. Now, you’re trying to eliminate the low income energy assistance programs while Trump’s illegal Iran war raises gas prices.

Does that make Americans stronger and more prosperous? It’s important to not have fraudulent programs. Oh, I’m so glad you asked about fraud, because you are coming back to ask for a $1.5 trillion budget for the Department of Defense. How many consecutive audits has the Department of Defense failed as of the end of 2025? The department is making progress towards the audit.

How many audits has the Department of Defense failed? The number is eight. And Mr. Vogt, the Department of Defense is the only federal agency that has never passed an audit. And you want to talk to me about fraud? There is over at least $10 billion in confirmed fraud within the Department of Defense, but you’re not going after any of that.

Now, let me turn to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, since you’re also the acting director there. This was an agency that was established to protect consumers from financial predation, deception, fraud, and abuse from the biggest banks, biggest corporations. And the CFPB has stepped in and really done that work under the last administration.

CFPB put real money back in consumers’ pockets, returned over $21 billion to consumers who were cheated or scammed by big banks, giant corporations. It ordered Wells Fargo to pay over $2 billion and Bank of America to pay $727 million to consumers who were harmed. But you have a mission to eliminate the CFPB.

Why are you protecting big corporations instead of consumers, Mr. Vogt? I’m not. CFPB caused $350 billion of added costs on consumers. Mr. Vogt, you are asking to reduce the CFPB’s workforce to just one-third of its 2025 level, which means that the department that oversees the banks and other financial companies that hold trillions of dollars in mortgage, auto, credit card, and student loan debt would drop from 500 employees to just 77.

And the enforcement department would only have 50 workers. What do you have to say to the millions of service members, veterans, older adults, and students that are seeing costs rise and now, because of your unprecedented rollback of consumer protection staff, have nobody at the agency that is actually policing those big corporations that are scamming consumers? The gentlelady’s time has expired. We are policing it.

And in fact, we do not believe that an agency that increased the cost on the American people should not have oversight. That’s why we’ve reined it in. You have five minutes.

It is clear to me that you are just protecting those biggest corporations, Mr. Vogt, and you should be ashamed of that. I yield back. South Carolina, you have five minutes to my friend, Mr. Amo, from Rhode Island.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for holding this much-needed oversight hearing. Director, I’m sure you know you’ve got a lot of nicknames, things like Grim Reaper, but I’m not here to call you names. I am here to call you out on the pain that you’ve inflicted on Rhode Islanders and Americans who are fed up.

And I want to get to the point, so I’ll keep things simple. I’ve got a few yes or no questions. Should Americans have access to medical care, yes or no? Yes.

Well, that’s great that we’re in agreement, because if you cared about the sick, you wouldn’t be forcing states to make impossible decisions about who will feel the pain of Trump and Republicans’ cruel health care cuts from that big, ugly law. So bad that you keep renaming it. You’ve rebranded it about three times now.

Kids with disabilities, cancer patients, seniors, who do you think should feel the pain? You have forced Rhode Island to make impossible decisions about who should suffer. You want us to believe that we can’t afford to help buy sick constituents. But you claim it’s smart budgeting to request $1.5 trillion in defense funding for a department that already has more money than they know what to do with to fight illegal wars.

I’ve got another question for you. Should hungry children be fed, yes or no? Yes, and they are. Look, I would believe you if your shutdown strategy didn’t put 144,000 Rhode Islanders at risk of going hungry.

Our shutdown strategy? Yes, your shutdown. Yes, because… Sir, who’s the one who voted against those bills? Sir, you have had a position where you have seen shutdowns as ways to break federal workers, as ways to hurt the American people. I’m reclaiming my time.

You caused that shutdown. I’m reclaiming my time, sir. Was $6 a day too generous for you? Look, from Woonsocket to Providence, in the first congressional district of Rhode Island, I visited food banks, and I’ve seen the struggle to keep up with rising demand from hungry Rhode Islanders, and that’s thanks to your cruelty.

Look, I have seen your actions, and I want you to take time with this particular question because you brought up it being our shutdown. Do you think a lot of good comes from government shutdowns, yes or no? No. Well, do you disagree with President Trump then? Because that’s a quote from President Trump.

You don’t care about the 1.4 million Americans who missed a paycheck during Trump’s shutdown last year. You want public servants, as you’ve said, to be viewed as villains. From air traffic controllers, to naval officers, to VA employees, I heard constituents harmed by your shutdown.

There is nothing good about that. It’s damaging to real people, sir. You caused it.

You voted for it. Look. You were the person that, with all of your votes.

Mr. Vogt, just like you did with Doge, you think that good things come from breaking people. You have said it’s fine to break things and pick up the pieces later. I didn’t make up these words.

Those are your words. That has no regard to Rhode Islanders who are still trying to put their lives together. People around this country who are still trying to put their lives together.

If you don’t know your own words, how can you show up here to speak? Look, I’m going to wrap up because I don’t want to afford you more time to tell more lies to the American people. You don’t get to override Congress because you disagree with how funds are spent. You don’t get to force government shutdowns to break people.

Your decisions have done nothing but hurt my constituents. They don’t need Washington bureaucrats like you making funding decisions that upend their lives. And you’ve said a lot of things today.

I’ve watched some of your participation from my office. I saw some of it here. And your actions reveal the truth despite your words.

When given the choice, you have chosen cruelty and chaos over billionaires over and over and over again. Billionaires, cruelty, chaos, you attacked health care, you put food for hungry kids at risk, you ignored Congress, you jacked up prices, the American people are fed up, read every poll, and you embrace shutdowns that hurt working people. So at its core, sir, I don’t think you value the American people.

Your disregard for their lives is creating a great amount of pain. And as you’re hearing from our side, our constituents are paying the price. Yet you put forward a budget that grows but cuts again at the things that help the American people.

Senator Kaine. Mr. Chair, there’s been some discussion about the bill, the DHS funding bill that the Senate passed unanimously now twice. The House, the votes are there in the House to pass it.

The leadership will not take it up. You were before the House yesterday. Did you encourage the House to finally pass the DHS bill? We want the bill passed.

My interactions yesterday were to remind one side of the aisle. But you do want the bill passed? We want the bill passed. Did you say that during the hearing yesterday? I wasn’t asked it.

Well, you said a lot of things during the hearing. If it was a priority for the administration. In response to Democratic politicians that were saying that we were responsible for the shutdown.

Hold on. Our shutdown? Hold on. You had the opportunity to tell the House yesterday to pass a bill that you say you support, that 100% of the Senate supports, and you didn’t bring it up.

That’s fascinating. Senator, you had the opportunity to fund DHS without a month’s shutdown. Second question.

I was interested in the revenues in the budget that you sent over. One revenue in particular that interested me was tariffs. What you’re assuming for tariffs.

You can see that the numbers on tariffs were sort of bumping around at less than $100 billion a year, $100 billion in 2022, $195 billion in 2025, when the tariffs started to kick in in IEPA. Tariffs have been determined to be illegal by the Supreme Court, the IEPA tariffs. Next week you’re starting to refund $166 billion of tariffs.

So I was interested to see what your tariff projection was going to be. And actually what I see is, far from going down as you’re refunding illegal tariffs, you’re predicting dramatic increases in tariffs. What is President Trump going to tax next? Senator, what you’re looking at is, we had 10-year assumptions for the IEPA tariffs, and those should be shaded a different way.

Obviously the Supreme Court changed our strategy on that, and we were going through a process to replace those, but we do not believe that the tariffs will be less than under IEPA. So if you’re going through the process, tariffs are a tax. I’d like to introduce, Mr. Chair, two documents from the New York Federal Reserve.

90% of the cost of the tariffs last year fell on American consumers and businesses. And another from the Tax Foundation. The average in 2025 was $1,000 per American tax household, if I could introduce them.

So you’re going through a process to decide, what are you going to tax next? Who are you going to tax next to reach these astronomical tariff numbers? We don’t think they’re a tax on the American people. They have not raised prices. 90% of the cost has fallen on American consumers.

By a Tax Foundation paper that doesn’t support tariffs. But who are you going to impose the tariffs on next? Look, tariffs are imposed on the foreign importers, right? We’ve seen that they don’t impact… Okay, so what industry sectors are you going to hobble? Do you know yet? It’s not hobbling. It’s ensuring that we have American manufacturers in this country.

So I’m assuming you don’t know. You don’t yet know who the next tariffs are going to hit. You’re just projecting all this money is coming out of American’s pockets.

Our agreements with countries, Senator, have been out there ever since Liberation Day. Liberation Day. Yeah, that’s the one that you did right before tax day that took $1,000 out of American families’ pockets.

Let me go to the next one. I’ve heard you go back and forth between talking about the investment in the Department of Defense or the Department of War. Now, just for everybody here, legally, the name of this department is the Department of Defense, correct? It’s the Department of War.

And why do you say that? Because that’s what the president and his team has renamed it. And there’s a statute that calls it the Department of Defense. The president did an executive order saying the Department of War was a secondary title in September of 2025.

Have you been instructed to use the phrase the Department of War? No, there’s an executive order that goes through a legal process. Okay, you’re just voluntarily complying with this whimsical cosplay. Let me ask you this.

You object to the word? Let me ask you this. You object to the name? Are you aware of legislation that’s been passed by Congress to change the name? No, I’m just curious as to the extent to which… I didn’t realize this would be a debate, Senator. Well, I’m not debating you.

I’m asking you a question. It’s a hostile world out there. Are you aware of any… The president did an executive order on this.

Are you aware of any bill to change the legal name of the department? Not to my knowledge, but it’s probably something we would consider. Well, I’m saying there’s an NDA process right now. Folks want to change it.

I would look forward to that debate, because I think you’ll get laughed out of the room and you’ll become a punchline on TV. Nations all around the world have secretaries and ministers of defense. Do you know of any that has a secretary and minister of war? Our founders thought it was a pretty good name when they categorized it as the Department And after World War II, President Truman changed it back.

Are you aware of any nation in the world that calls this function war rather than defense? I did not realize that this was a source of shame. I will tell you that there’s no other nation. Do you know in the oath that our military officers take, is the word war mentioned? I’m not aware.

Defense is mentioned. War is not mentioned. Finally, you’ve sacked 350,000 people.

Do you know what percentage are veterans? Senator, we have ensured that all of the veteran preferences are stuck to… 30% of the federal workforce is veteran. So when you fire 350,000 people, I think you have fired more veterans than any administration in the history of the United States. I yield back.

Thank you. So I don’t recall this level of outrage when gasoline prices nationwide averaged $5 a gallon in June of 2022 because of the Democrat war on fossil fuels. I don’t understand or don’t hear the outrage of the incredibly high energy price in California that probably he was closest to the type of policies they want to promote in terms of energy.

Well, let me remind you. The good news is… Let me remind you. As long as you’re going to debate with me, you might as well allow me to answer.

The good news is we’re actually utilizing God-given energy resources here in America. We are energy independent. We are the largest producer now of fossil fuels for energy.

If you want a good economy, you need power. The cheaper the power, the better. And green energy has… As long as you’re going to interrupt and challenge what I have said, I at least deserve the courtesy to reply.

And I will tell you that there was considerable outrage when fossil fuel prices soared in the past. And in fact, I wrote an excess profits clawback bill because the fossil fuel industry took the biggest profits in world history, taking advantage of the Ukraine war to raise profit prices on American consumers, even for a dollar of gas that never went anywhere near Ukraine. Listen, your Democrat policy has failed.

But Senator Lujan. Mr. Chairman, I don’t know the last time you put some diesel in your truck or your tractor. Go talk to the farmers back at home that are just trying to mill back there.

It’s $5.50 a gallon, man. If it’s $5.50 a gallon, it’s awful for anyone, anytime, any year. And any of us that were quiet when it was high before, shame on all of us.

But this is ridiculous and it’s hurting people and it’s breaking people. So I’m certainly hopeful that we all will do something about this. I don’t see anything in this budget that will help reduce prices for the American people.

But the questions I prepared for today, Director, I don’t know if you’re aware. The last hearing that Chairman Graham had in this committee room, in the Budget Committee, was around Social Security. And that’s where my questions are.

As you know, Social Security and Medicare are the foundation of financial and health security for older Americans, people with disabilities, and survivors. The programs provide dignity and retirement and protect the American people during hard times. I think we can all agree with that.

I’ve heard the President say things like that before. Now, Director, does President Trump believe that Social Security and Medicare are worth protecting? Of course. Director, I presume that you’re aware that both Social Security and Medicare face shortfalls in the next decade.

I’m aware of the accounting shortfalls. But I’m here to tell you that the President is fully committed to making sure that Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries are fully protected. Appreciate that.

Now, does the budget that you’re here to talk about, that was submitted for this fiscal year request, does it include any proposals to address the looming insolvency of Social Security or Medicare? There are no mandatory proposals in this budget. It is a discretionary only budget, unless those mandatory proposals are part and parcel of the discretionary needs in this first year. Does it make any proposals to protect seniors from harmful benefit cuts? It is not a mandatory long-term budget.

It is a discretionary only. We do not have mandatory policies. This President fully protects Social Security and Medicare beneficiaries now and forever more.

Mr. Director, are you aware that Republicans in the Senate and the House representatives are contemplating a budget reconciliation as soon as next week? Yes, Senator. Is President Trump demanding provisions to sure up Social Security and Medicare in the budget reconciliation bill? Senator, we’re in a crisis right now because of the fact that the Democrats did not fund Department of Homeland Security for a month. As a result, we had a Department of Homeland Security that was disintegrating, and the Senate then had to take steps to pass everything but ICE and the CBP.

Now we’re in a situation where we have to, on the mandatory side, pass a reconciliation bill to fund those two law enforcement agencies because the Democrats wouldn’t do it through the normal appropriations process. This process has to be tight, it has to be timely, and we fully expect to get that done between now and June. Director, you’re in the U.S. Senate side of the Capitol today.

Are you aware of that? What’s that? You’re on the U.S. Senate side of the Capitol today? Do you know who’s in the majority in the U.S. Senate? Yes. Who? The Republican Party who relies on Democrat votes to get through the filibuster. Director, are you aware that the United States Senate passed not just once but twice funding of most of the DHS bill? Are you aware of that? And are you aware of who’s in the majority in the U.S. House of Representatives? After a month’s shutdown.

Who’s in the majority, Director? Department of Homeland Security. Okay, let me give you, it’s a secret. Republicans are in the majority in the U.S. House.

Mike Johnson’s the one that’s sitting on his ass and not doing a damn thing to move the legislation. He lied to the American people and said he’d move it on a Monday, and then on Tuesday, you know, I guess he prayed to the Jesus that Donald Trump purports to be, and then he changed his mind, and now nothing’s happening, sir. So let’s talk about the facts, but let me get back to this.

I appreciate today the clarity that you just told us that there’s nothing in the budget bill to address Social Security, to address Medicare. When Chairman Graham was up here, I said, well, look, there’s a budget reconciliation bill coming up. If you care about Social Security because we’re having this hearing today, then do something about it.

You don’t need Democratic votes if you’re going to go this way. Fill it and get it done. Director, I’m just beside myself in some of these areas.

Let me ask a question with my remaining time here. Is inflation up or is it lower than a year ago today? It’s much lower than the 9% that was historic under the Biden administration because of spending. Appreciate that.

Now, will you answer my question? Is it higher or lower than a year ago? Right now, we are in the middle of a situation in Iran, and as a result, we are going to be on the other side of that, hopefully soon. Do you want to finish that? So what are you suggesting? Is it higher or lower than a year ago? Senator, I’m suggesting that the policies of the Democratic Party contribute lead to inflation. When I left office, inflation was never a problem.

If you disagree with me, Director, you can correct me. Inflation is higher right now than it was a year ago. Senator, the policies of the Democratic Party contributed to the highest inflation since the 1980s.

I heard your question and response earlier. I’m asking about a year ago. Director, you came into this office a year ago.

It’s higher now. That’s just facts. And the President’s administration has driven down the cost of inflation because we have tackled spending.

We have tackled affordability. It’s higher than it was a year ago. The President took office a year ago.

You can keep spending this all you want. Again, I’ll remind you what I told my colleagues a while back. A statistics professor of mine said, figures don’t lie, but liars can figure.

You can dance around all these numbers all you want, but they need to tell the truth. Let’s be honest with the American people. When RFK was before me in the finance committee, I said, tell the American people the truth.

And his response was something along the lines, they don’t want to hear that. Let’s just be honest with each other as we get to this place. It is what it is.

The facts are the facts. So I certainly hope that we can get there as well. And then, Mr. Chairman, I know you’re going to explain to everyone what I tried to say today, so I appreciate your clarity as a professor and explaining what the New Mexico farmer was trying to say to the director today, but I’ll just close by saying trickle-down economic theory is not a new idea.

The notion that you defend a director to the question asked by the chairman on who got the tax breaks with the question that came from my colleague from Rhode Island in justifying that wealthy people getting tax breaks will make its way down to people, that’s an old, broken theory, man. Trickle-down cancer has not worked in America. It’s not working now.

It’s hurting people. So I hope we get an explanation of what that means as well. I yield back.

Senator Murray. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You know, a budget is really an expression of our morals and our values, and frankly, looking at Trump’s latest budget, I don’t see it as a very moral budget. We’re cutting tens of billions of dollars from housing and health care and education so we can spend a half a trillion dollars more to fund Trump’s foreign wars. We should be sending more funding to our schools, right here in America, not, in my opinion, buying more missiles that Trump can fire on schools in Iran.

We should be building bridges here in America, not destroying them in Iran. And we should be bringing down our energy costs, not blowing money on wars that send gas prices for our constituents to the roof. So direct your vote.

It will not shock you to hear that I believe that this budget is morally bankrupt and also, by any objective measure, deeply irresponsible because it will rob our families and burden our grandkids with mountains of new debt, and for what? For what? So Trump has more bombs he can threaten to end civilizations with, and also this budget robs states like mine. It zeroes out funding for Howard Hanson Dam, once again. Short changes, Hanford cleanup.

And now, just to be clear, I rejected those cuts in our last funding bills. I will do it again as many times as it takes. But there is, in my opinion, only one place for this budget, and that is in the trash bin.

But having said that, I do have some questions for you. You and President Trump are asking for $450 billion in new defense spending. To be clear, that is the largest increase since World War II, and that does not include money that you reportedly still plan to request for the war in Iran.

What is the total dollar amount requested for defense spending in FY27, including annual appropriations and reconciliation funds? $1.5 trillion, Senator. A combination between the appropriations and the mandatory. We are trying to increase the amount that you would fund through the appropriations, but we don’t want the full increase to have to be borne in the appropriations process.

So $1.5 trillion. What is the total dollar amount requested for non-defense spending? $660 billion. Okay, and what is the overall cut to non-defense programs that you’re proposing? $70 billion.

We look at that as about $81 billion, frankly. So, let me just say this. Director Vogt, you count yourself as a spending hawk, and here you are arguing for a gobsmacking $1.5 trillion defense budget.

I read that you disagreed with the President on that $1.5 trillion request, warning him that it would explode the deficit. Did you warn the President or administration officials that spending this much on defense would explode the deficit? Senator, I fully support this budget. We go through a long policy process.

It’s needed for the Department of War. It’s one time. It’s designed to have paradigm-shifting investments, like I mentioned in my opening comments, to be able to fund now what this President is willing to do, multi-year agreements, and it’s necessary to keep us safe.

I mean, I’ve never been more confident that the administration is doing whatever it can to be efficient at the Department of War, but there are bills that need to be paid with regard to drones and munitions and planes that have to capitalize on that. You can do your political statement later. I will just say for the record that people at home need to understand this.

The President is proposing that we cut over $73 billion in our domestic funding for things like education and healthcare that are critical for our economy, for our families, for the future of our country to help pay for a truly jaw-dropping half a trillion dollars in increase in defense spending. I just think that we have to all recognize what is going on here and be smart about how we put together a budget as we go forward. Director Vogt, let me just ask you, we’re here to talk about next year’s budget, obviously, but as we talk about it, this administration is spending billions on the war in Iran as we speak.

I heard Senator Merkley ask you a question, and I just want to confirm this. You have no idea, none, how much has been spent on the war so far? We don’t have that figures right now. I think in part because it’s fluctuating on a day-in-day-out basis, but it’s one of the reasons we want to, are studiously reviewing You can’t even give us a range.

No, I’m not going to give you a range because I don’t want to be inaccurate. You’re just not going to tell you and tell us because you don’t want us to know how much is being spent. We have a responsibility here.

Senator Merkley mentioned that. We have to know how much is spent so we can put our budgets together, so we can make our annual appropriations, and I just find it outrageous that as director you’re not willing to tell us what those costs are. It’s your job to know.

Let me also ask you, you said that the appropriations process has to be less bipartisan. Do you stand by that statement? That was coming at a time during the rescissions process in which the use of a statutory process was derided by one side as a shot against the bipartisan appropriations process, and it’s not. You pass appropriations bills right now, and they have to get 60 votes?