Trump Administration Breaks Tradition by Withholding Full Federal Budget

For over fifty years, presidents from both major parties have consistently submitted comprehensive federal budget proposals to Congress each year. However, the Trump administration is set to break this longstanding tradition.

In May, well past the usual deadline, the administration unveiled a so-called “skinny budget”: a brief overview highlighting select spending priorities but omitting the majority of detailed fiscal plans. Despite expectations, a full budget proposal has yet to be released.

Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, recently told reporters that a complete budget would eventually be made public. Yet, he also suggested that releasing such a document might not align with the administration’s interests, citing concerns about confusing the public during debates over major domestic legislation—debates that had already concluded weeks prior.

This unprecedented withholding of the full budget not only breaks with decades of presidential practice but also contravenes legal requirements and undermines public trust. Citizens have a fundamental right to understand how their tax dollars are allocated.

The Budget and Accounting Act of 1921 established the requirement for presidents to submit an annual, comprehensive budget plan. Additionally, legislation enacted in 1974, following prior presidential attempts to withhold congressional appropriations, strengthened congressional oversight of the budgeting process.

Interestingly, the Trump administration submitted full budget proposals annually during its first term. The current secrecy may reflect concerns about the unpopularity of its fiscal agenda, which reportedly includes additional tax cuts favoring the wealthy and deeper reductions in Medicaid and other widely supported programs.

For instance, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent recently suggested that new savings accounts for newborns, introduced in the domestic policy legislation, could serve as a covert means to privatize Social Security—a claim conflicting with President Trump’s repeated assurances to safeguard the program. Bessent later clarified that Social Security would not be dismantled.

Such contradictory statements emphasize the urgent need for a detailed budget proposal. If there are plans to alter or diminish Social Security—similar to previous Medicaid cuts despite earlier promises—the public deserves transparency. Without a full budget, speculation prevails and informed policy debate is hindered.

The skinny budget released in May is notably incomplete, accounting for only annually appropriated spending, which represents less than one-third of total federal expenditures and covers just a single fiscal year. It excludes two-thirds of the budget, including mandatory programs such as Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and projections of deficits and national debt. This contrasts sharply with the traditional, detailed multi-year plans that encompass all mandatory and discretionary spending, revenues, and fiscal forecasts.

Meanwhile, the administration has rapidly implemented major policy changes through executive orders affecting immigration, deportations, tariffs, and federal staffing levels, among other areas. Even experts find it challenging to keep pace with and evaluate the combined impact of these initiatives.

A comprehensive budget would integrate these policies into a coherent financial framework, clarifying their costs and fiscal consequences. It would also reveal whether the administration’s spending aligns with its forecasts for inflation and interest rates. Without such transparency, the public cannot fully evaluate the administration’s economic management.

Moreover, withholding the budget undermines the Constitution’s system of checks and balances by restricting Congress’s ability to scrutinize and debate the president’s fiscal agenda. Historically, Congress has held annual public hearings on multi-year budget plans, summoning administration officials and experts to provide testimony and analysis. These hearings were often broadcast publicly, enhancing governmental accountability and informing citizens.

Secretive budgeting also disrupts the expectations of investors and businesses, which depend on predictable government tax and spending policies to make strategic decisions.

This administration’s budgetary opacity is consistent with previous actions: withholding funds approved by Congress, temporarily disabling federal spending tracking websites, dismissing independent inspectors general tasked with combating corruption, and criticizing impartial federal budget oversight bodies.

The administration must cease concealing its fiscal plans and fulfill its governing responsibilities by promptly releasing a full and transparent budget proposal.