When Elon Musk descended on Washington with his Department of Government Efficiency, he burrowed into individual agencies, chasing headlines with mass firings and access to sensitive federal systems.
It made for dramatic television, but journalist and author David Dayen published an analysis in The i Paper showing the more consequential power grab in Donald Trump's second presidency belongs to someone few Americans could pick out of a lineup: Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget.
"In the past two years, Vought has used this position to essentially wrest the entire budget process away from Congress, which has the constitutionally recognized authority over spending decisions in the U.S. government," wrote Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect. "Sometimes, this is called the 'power of the purse.' That makes Vought a purse-snatcher."
Where Musk tried to conquer government agency by agency, Vought identified something more efficient — the single chokepoint through which nearly every federal dollar must pass. OMB doesn't need to occupy an agency to control it; it simply controls whether that agency gets funded. That distinction explains why Vought, not Musk, now holds what may be the most significant consolidation of executive power in the current administration.
"This wasn't something Vought stumbled into," Dayen wrote. "He trained to be a purse-snatcher for four years, diligently thinking about how to centralize power in the hands of the president while making the other branches of the U.S. government irrelevant. Today, he is implementing that deliberate plan."
Through the Center for Renewing America, he built the argument that the Impoundment Control Act — the 1974 law barring presidents from unilaterally blocking congressionally approved spending — is itself unconstitutional. It's a theory with essentially no grounding in constitutional text or precedent, but it gave Vought a ready-made rationale the moment he returned to power.
Roughly $410 billion in appropriated funds was blocked in the first fiscal year of Trump's second term, much of it targeting programs Vought's team deemed "woke" or DEI-related. The administration has also asserted the right to unilaterally cancel scientific research grants based on ideological alignment. Notably, none of this reflects genuine fiscal restraint — deficits have hit record levels, and spending on priorities like defense and immigration enforcement has ballooned.
Vought's reach extends beyond OMB, Dayen wrote. As acting director of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau since February 2025, he has effectively idled the agency, halting consumer restitution and fighting off court orders that have repeatedly blocked his attempts to gut its staff. He has also pioneered the "pocket rescission" — timing spending-cancellation requests to Congress so close to the fiscal year's end that the money lapses before lawmakers can act, sidestepping any actual vote.
"When watchdogs have tried to investigate Vought's OMB over its actions, it ignores document requests," Dayen wrote. "The courts have time and again ruled that OMB is breaking the law by withholding spending — yet they continue to do it."
Vought's years of preparation taught him where to park himself to remake the government in his right-wing vision, whereas Musk and his "Department of Government Efficiency" attempted to burrow into the agencies themselves to do his dirty work, and Dayen said the Project 2025 architect has already made breathtaking progress toward his goal.
"It's a frightening conception of the U.S. government that is totally antithetical to history and law," Dayen wrote. "It can be stopped — Congress is, for the most part, not using the power it has to counteract these power grabs. But Vought is very clever and very determined — and it will take the same kind of effort to stop him."
