WASHINGTON, D.C. (NorthDakotaMonitor) – Just after President Donald Trump rallied U.S. House Republicans to pass a giant legislative package containing most of his domestic policy goals Tuesday, members of both parties on a U.S. House Appropriations subcommittee told Interior Secretary Doug Burgum they would likely provide his department more funding than Trump requested.
Even as Republicans professed a deference to Trump — with the subcommittee’s chairman calling him “the boss” — they also reaffirmed Congress’ power to direct spending, winning a promise from Burgum to spend congressionally appropriated money for its intended purpose.
Republicans and Democrats on the House Appropriations Interior, Environment, and Related Agencies Subcommittee raised concerns with Burgum about proposed deep cuts in the administration’s “skinny budget” request to the National Park Service, Bureau of Indian Education and other Interior Department programs.
“The administration proposed some deep funding cuts that we will likely not see eye-to-eye (on), especially when it comes to Indian programs and the operations of our national parks,” subcommittee Chairman Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, said.
The subcommittee’s ranking Democrat, Maine’s Chellie Pingree, was more blunt in her objection to the budget request, saying she “wholeheartedly” opposed it.
“Secretary Burgum, the document we’re here to discuss today is more than just a budget,” she said. “It’s a blueprint for dismantling the very mission of the Department of Interior, making it impossible to protect our natural resources and iconic national parks or uphold our commitments to tribal communities now and for future generations.”
In his opening statement, Burgum highlighted efforts by the administration to increase oil and gas development, which he said would increase federal revenues from the department.
Burgum rejects impoundment
The panel’s hearing started late as Republican members were delayed listening to Trump address their conference’s weekly meeting.
“I want to apologize for the half-hour late start; we were listening to the boss over at conference,” Simpson said, referring to Trump’s appearance at the House Republican Conference meeting.
But, he continued, the panel would likely not accept the president’s recommendation to reduce the department’s budget by 30%, and he used his first question to put Burgum on the record about the administration’s duty to spend congressionally appropriated funds.
“If Congress chooses to provide discretionary appropriations for the agency that are at levels above the president’s budget request, how would you handle that?” Simpson asked. “In other words, would you spend the amounts provided in an enacted bill and for the specific programs that Congress identifies?”
“Yes,” Burgum responded. “That would be the law.”
While Congress has the constitutional authority to make federal spending decisions, spending hawks within the administration, including budget chief Russell Vought, have broached the idea of “impounding” money that Congress has directed. The legality of the concept is untested.
Burgum’s response to Simpson rejected the use of impoundment, but Pingree noted that his department has still been unable to access appropriations due to delays at the Office of Management and Budget, which Vought oversees.
‘Congress has the power of the purse’
The continuing resolution that Trump signed in March included a provision that the Interior Department would have funds available within 60 days, she said. That deadline has passed but the money had not yet been apportioned, threatening job losses in Maine and other states, she said.
Pingree asked Burgum if he was “pushing the OMB to appropriate your department’s funding.”
Burgum said he was.
“Okay, pushing is good,” she said. “So just from my perspective, if you don’t get this funding, then that is impoundment. It is breaking the law. And I think perhaps on both sides of the aisle, we’re feeling very frustrated this administration is not expeditiously appropriating what we funded.
“Congress has the power of the purse,” she continued. “We meet in this committee, and we do an incredible amount of work negotiating back and forth on both sides of the aisle to arrive at these numbers and to figure out what should be done. And to have this administration just wantonly disregard what we have done, and to worry about having to do that in the next, 2026, budget, I would ask, you know what, why do committees meet? Why do we do the work that we’re doing if, in fact, we can’t count on the OMB?”
Cut in spending on Park Service
The president’s budget request included a $900 million decrease in spending for the National Park Service, which is part of the Interior Department. The administration proposed turning some NPS assets over to the states to manage as a way to reduce expenses.
Asked by Simpson about that idea, Burgum said no one was considering removing any of the 64 “crown jewel” national parks, but that some of the more than 400 other NPS sites could be managed by state or local authorities. Those sites may include historic battlefields or presidential birthplaces, he said.
“There’s, I think, zero intention of transferring any actual national parks,” he said. “I mean, the 64 crown jewels that we have, there’s zero thought about that.”
Full committee Chairman Tom Cole, an Oklahoma Republican, noted that Burgum had taken the 64 large parks off the table, but was supportive of transferring smaller sites. He urged Burgum to look not just at states but at tribal governments.
“Look at the Chickasaw National Recreational Area sometime,” Cole, a citizen of the Chickasaw Nation, said. “I guarantee you, we’d manage it better. And that’s not to say the federal government does a bad job. They don’t, but we would put more resources into it.”
Tribal education
Members also questioned Burgum on the administration’s proposed $187 million decrease for the Bureau of Indian Education construction.
Burgum said his team was trying to understand the challenges of BIE facilities and noted that some were in need of maintenance.
But he said that his experience as North Dakota governor showed him that poor outcomes at BIE were not necessarily related to funding.
“It’s not always correlated between the more money you spend, the better outcomes you get,” he said.
Cole said he agreed with that idea, but said funding was also a statement of priorities.
“But I also think that kids have to have a good place to learn,” he said. “And sometimes that’s an expression of whether or not you care about them very much. And I’ve been to some excellent BIE schools… but I’ve been to some places I wouldn’t send my kid to simply because the resources aren’t there and haven’t ever been there.”
