The names of many of Donald Trump’s most controversial cabinet nominees are probably familiar to Americans who keep up on current events. People like Pete Hegseth, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Kash Patel and Tulsi Gabbard have earned their reputations as notorious nominees.

But while Russell Vought, the president’s choice to lead the Office of Management and Budget — an agency that “touches on every facet of the government” — is probably less known to most observers, the Project 2025 co-author almost certainly belongs on the same list.

In an opinion piece for The New York Times, Damon Linker explained that the new OMB director, if confirmed, plans “nothing less than a full-scale assault on the regulatory and spending powers of the executive branch.” The writer added that it’s Vought and his agenda that could end up having “the greatest long-term impact on the shape of American democracy.”

That might sound overdramatic. It’s not. Indeed, some of Vought’s testimony during his Senate confirmation hearing helped drive the point home. Politico reported:

The big news out of Russell Vought’s second confirmation hearing Wednesday before the Senate Budget Committee was impoundment. From emergency wildfire dollars to foreign aid and beyond, Democrats repeatedly prodded President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of Management and Budget about a stance he has taken for years: He doesn’t believe Congress has the final say on federal spending.

I suspect some readers will see the word “impoundment,” assume the subject is wonky and boring, and click away. But hang in there; I’m going somewhere with this.

Throughout American history, officials have recognized that the Congress has what’s known as “the power of the purse”: In our constitutional system, it’s lawmakers who have the sole authority to dictate government spending. When an appropriations bill emerges from Capitol Hill and becomes law, it’s not a recommendation or a suggestion about possible spending; it’s a directive to the executive branch.

During his presidency, Richard Nixon tested these assumptions and deliberately refused to spend billions of federal programs that he didn’t like. His approach failed spectacularly in the courts, and Nixon, weakened by Watergate, ultimately signed the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which made clear that presidents don’t have the legal authority to ignore Congress on federal spending.

Vought, Trump’s OMB nominee, not only disagrees with the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, he also believes the law is unconstitutional and should be ignored.

When Democratic Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, for example, asked during Vought’s confirmation hearing whether he would comply with existing law, the nominee replied that Trump “ran against the Impoundment Control Act” during the 2024 campaign.

There’s some truth to that — though it’s obviously a stretch to think “impoundment” was on the minds of many voters when they cast their ballots last fall — though I’m hard-pressed to explain its relevance. Laws must be honored, even if politicians run on a platform in opposition to those laws.

Recommended

Maddowblog

Republicans go ‘nuclear’ to help Trump nominees, invite Democratic backlash

Steve Benen

Maddowblog

After going ‘nuclear,’ Republicans confirm Trump nominees, including Guilfoyle, Gingrich

Steve Benen

At the same hearing Wednesday, there was a similar exchange between Vought and Sen. Patty Murray. The Washington Democratic asked, point plank, whether the OMB nominee would honor existing law. He again testified, “The president ran on the notion that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional [and] I agree with that.”

It’s easy to imagine much of the public shrugging with indifference in response to debates like these, but there are foundational principles of government and constitutional law at stake.

Even if you’ve never seen or heard the word “impoundment,” you’re probably familiar with core American ideas, such as checks and balances and Congress’ power of the purse. What Vought envisions is a new model in which the people’s representatives allocate funds, Trump smiles politely, and the White House then refuses to spend federal funds in line with Congress’ wishes.

Why should the public care? Because it matters when an authoritarian-minded president and his team seize powers — powers to which they are not entitled — from a co-equal branch of government.

Or as my MSNBC colleague Hayes Brown recently summarized, “Under Vought’s watch, the executive branch would be transformed fully into the sole branch of government with any real say in how the country functions.”

Complicating matters, some congressional Republicans have grown so supine that they’re prepared to go along with such a plan, freely handing over power to Trump that belongs on Capitol Hill. As my MSNBC colleague Ja’han Jones explained in December, more than a dozen House GOP members sponsored a bill in the last Congress that would repeal the Impoundment Control Act entirely, “giving Trump unprecedented power to determine which funds are spent.”

Senate Republicans are all but certain to confirm Vought. Some highly provocative court fights will probably soon follow.