This kind of power grab isn’t new, it’s a classic move from the authoritarian playbook. Around the world, one of the first steps leaders take to consolidate power is undermining the legislature’s control over the budget. In countries like Hungary, Turkey, and Russia, executives have used budgetary tactics to bypass parliaments, silence opposition, and push their agendas without oversight.
All three of those countries are now considered authoritarian or hybrid regimes. On paper, they still have democratic institutions but in practice, their legislatures no longer serve as real checks on executive power. The shift didn’t happen overnight. It started with subtle changes and complicit lawmakers, but it ended with presidents who controlled both the money and the message. And now, we’re seeing something disturbingly similar take shape in the U.S.
This week’s rescission vote represents a major shift in the balance of power between Congress and the president, one that strikes at the heart of the Constitution.
For more than 200 years, the power of the purse has belonged to Congress. Article I of the Constitution gives the legislative branch sole authority to raise and allocate public funds. That’s not just bookkeeping, it’s one of the most powerful tools Congress has to influence policy, set national priorities, and hold the executive branch accountable.
But with this vote, the Senate, led by the president’s own party, handed that power over. By approving a White House-initiated rescission package with barely any debate and a simple majority, they opened the door for presidents to claw back money Congress has already approved. It turns the constitutional order upside down.
Even more troubling is what the cuts targeted: foreign aid and public broadcasting. These are areas where the executive’s political agenda often conflicts with long-standing bipartisan commitments. And while the Impoundment Control Act allows for rescission requests, it was never designed to let the president sidestep Congress or treat spending as a political weapon.
This sets a precedent, future presidents, no matter their party, could routinely gut congressional funding decisions with the stroke of a pen. That means fewer checks on executive power, a weaker Congress, and a serious blow to the system of checks and balances that underpins American democracy.
Source