Cognitive dissonance, or some may call it a lack of principles, has run strong throughout both iterations of the Trump administration, favoring political convenience, personal benefits, and populism over ideological consistency and lasting improvements to our system of governance.
The new rift between Elon Musk and the Trump administration on the so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” is indicative of the frustrations some are experiencing regarding the goals of the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) and the current goals of the administration.
DOGE was formed to reduce federal waste and spending, yet the tax bill that Trump is currently pushing Republicans in Congress to pass increases deficits by $2.4 trillion over ten years. To make matters worse, the White House budget request released for fiscal year 2026 adds to the pile.
Recently, Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russ Vought headed to Congress to testify before the House Appropriations Committee on the rescissions—or budgetary clawback—package officially requested by the administration on Tuesday. At the same time, though, he came prepared with a budgetary increase request for his OMB.
The OMB states that the request for a 13 percent increase in its funding is intended to support work on a major deregulatory effort; however, such logic falls apart under even moderate scrutiny. Vought's request for a larger budget for OMB comes at a time when the budget his agency put together for the White House proposes slashing nondefense spending by $163 billion.
A streamlined Executive Branch does not need additional staff to deregulate. All it needs is fewer rules, clearer standards, and the political will to say “no” more often than “yes” to bigger government. If Vought thinks he needs to hire more staff to deregulate, he is doing it wrong.
And thus, a new theme for the administration is born: “DOGE for thee, but not for me.” Congress should certainly not reward this, especially considering that many actions of the current administration openly violate various laws. In fact, multiple of its actions have been stopped by courts across the country, many with judges who Trump himself appointed.
The contradiction and blatant hypocrisy are hard to miss. It should not be ignored by the public or by members of Congress. The very administration that, since its inception, has drummed up support for fiscal discipline and regulatory restraint, is now seeking to expand its own bureaucratic footprint.
This is precisely why Congress must begin exercising its own independent judgment in its budgeting once again. Congress has abdicated many of its constitutional powers to the executive branch and the courts, and now it is facing the ramifications. For far too long, both parties have been complicit in this. And in recent years, even the most typically principled fiscal conservatives have fallen victim to this trend, kowtowing to the whims of the executive.
To truly limit government, Congress cannot continue blindly rubber-stamping deficit increases. It must have difficult conversations and make hard choices, and these choices must be above whatever the administration is peddling on any given day. And certainly, the hard choices must include far deeper cuts than the $9.4 billion rescissions package sent to Congress this week.
After all, while DOGE was intended to target duplication, inefficiency, and mission creep within the federal government, its credibility is undermined when the same administration that created DOGE is now quietly expanding its own bureaucracy. If lawmakers allow such contradictions, they become further complicit in eroding the values they claim to uphold.
Deregulation is a worthy goal, as is tax relief. But another, perhaps more worthy goal, is balancing the budget. Not by fantasy math or overreliance on supply-side arguments, but by real entitlement reform and potentially unpopular, but extremely necessary, choices.
Republicans in Congress should take a hard look at the hypocrisy in this budget request and remember that their job as members elected to the “First Branch” is to responsibly carry out the power of the purse, not to protect the executive from itself, and not to blindly shill for an administration that believes it is above the law.
