In my years in public education, it was rare for a program to be canceled outright. It would be defunded a little at a time and when it could no longer function, the powers that be would say, “See it isn’t working, sadly we’ll have to cancel it.” Hypocrites, all.
I had to do some digging on this, and it turns out the claim isn’t true.
There’s no $1 billion “slush fund” in the 2025 budget that Trump can spend however he wants. What does exist is a $1.5 billion allocation for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA), located in the foreign aid section. That money may be spent “at the President’s discretion,” but it’s restricted to overseas disasters and refugee crises. It can’t legally be redirected for domestic enforcement, political patronage, or other executive projects.
In other words, the funds are flexible within a defined humanitarian scope—not a blank check.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t troubling shifts in discretion and oversight elsewhere in the budget. But the myth of an unrestricted billion-dollar fund is just that—a myth. We have enough to worry about in what’s real. No need to fight ghosts.
James B. Greenberg’s recent article, “The Budget of Their Dreams,” raises genuine concerns about the direction of our country. And while I strongly disagree with many of his conclusions, I believe it’s important we engage these debates honestly—because at the end of the day, we all want an America that is secure, prosperous, and free.
A Return to Federal Balance This budget isn’t about dismantling democracy or harming the vulnerable. It’s about restoring a balance of power that protects our long-term future. For years, Washington has grown into a massive, often unaccountable force, reaching into areas of life that were meant to be guided more by states, local communities, and ultimately by families themselves.
Giving some of that responsibility back isn’t an attack on democracy—it’s a return to the spirit of the Constitution. It keeps decisions closer to the people who live with the results, rather than distant agencies in D.C. who may not fully understand local needs.
Who Really Gains? James frames tax relief as simply helping the rich. In reality, lower taxes and lighter regulation give breathing room to the small businesses and working families who drive our communities. When we reduce barriers, it’s local shops that stay open, farmers who can keep their land, and new ventures that create local jobs. That’s how we grow opportunity from the ground up.
And on regulations—it’s worth remembering that not every rule is written with the public’s best interest in mind. Some mainly protect entrenched players and make it harder for the little guy to compete. Cutting back excessive red tape doesn’t mean ignoring safety or fairness; it means being smart about what truly serves the people.
Public Safety and Community Well-Being James worries about funding shifts toward border security and law enforcement. But most Americans agree that protecting communities and upholding our immigration laws is simply responsible governance. We can—and must—do this with compassion, ensuring families are treated humanely, while still respecting our nation’s laws and sovereignty.
Programs like Medicaid aren’t being abandoned. They’re being adjusted so they’ll still be there for the most vulnerable years from now. Without reform, these programs risk collapse under their own weight—hurting exactly those who rely on them most.
Science, Education, and Diverse Support It’s also not accurate to say this budget attacks science or learning. In truth, it reins in sprawling federal agencies so they stay focused on real, measurable priorities. Great research and education often come from a wide mix of funding sources—public, private, local—which together keep ideas vibrant and less subject to political swings.
Some fear this means less independent thought. I’d argue that empowering local schools, local boards, and a diversity of funders actually encourages more viewpoints, not fewer. It helps guard against echo chambers and groupthink.
Checks on Power, Not Concentrations of It James worries about “executive flexibility,” seeing it as a step toward authoritarianism. But pushing more control down to states and communities—closer to voters—is the best safeguard against abuse. A distant, oversized bureaucracy is much harder for everyday citizens to hold accountable than local leaders you see at church or the grocery store.
Building Together At its heart, this budget is about trusting Americans. Trusting them to work hard, start businesses, care for their families, and shape their own futures. It seeks to encourage building, not dependency. It protects our borders, respects taxpayers, and ensures government doesn’t overshadow the very people it’s meant to serve.
I believe we share more than we sometimes admit. We all want a nation where people are safe, where the vulnerable are cared for, and where opportunity is real. We may disagree on how best to get there, but that conversation—carried out in good faith—is exactly what keeps our Republic healthy.
James sees creeping authoritarianism. I see an earnest effort to renew the promise of self-government, so power truly rests where it belongs: with the people. That’s not a threat to democracy—it’s the surest way to preserve it.
In my years in public education, it was rare for a program to be canceled outright. It would be defunded a little at a time and when it could no longer function, the powers that be would say, “See it isn’t working, sadly we’ll have to cancel it.” Hypocrites, all.
Is it true that the budget provides Trump with $1 Billion in discretionary funds that he can use for anything he wants?
That the law specifies no purpose(s) and requires no accountability?
No tracking, public reports or Congressional oversight?
I had to do some digging on this, and it turns out the claim isn’t true.
There’s no $1 billion “slush fund” in the 2025 budget that Trump can spend however he wants. What does exist is a $1.5 billion allocation for Emergency Refugee and Migration Assistance (ERMA), located in the foreign aid section. That money may be spent “at the President’s discretion,” but it’s restricted to overseas disasters and refugee crises. It can’t legally be redirected for domestic enforcement, political patronage, or other executive projects.
In other words, the funds are flexible within a defined humanitarian scope—not a blank check.
That doesn’t mean there aren’t troubling shifts in discretion and oversight elsewhere in the budget. But the myth of an unrestricted billion-dollar fund is just that—a myth. We have enough to worry about in what’s real. No need to fight ghosts.
THANK YOU very much for doing the deep dive on this.
The Budget of Restoration, Not Authoritarianism
James B. Greenberg’s recent article, “The Budget of Their Dreams,” raises genuine concerns about the direction of our country. And while I strongly disagree with many of his conclusions, I believe it’s important we engage these debates honestly—because at the end of the day, we all want an America that is secure, prosperous, and free.
A Return to Federal Balance This budget isn’t about dismantling democracy or harming the vulnerable. It’s about restoring a balance of power that protects our long-term future. For years, Washington has grown into a massive, often unaccountable force, reaching into areas of life that were meant to be guided more by states, local communities, and ultimately by families themselves.
Giving some of that responsibility back isn’t an attack on democracy—it’s a return to the spirit of the Constitution. It keeps decisions closer to the people who live with the results, rather than distant agencies in D.C. who may not fully understand local needs.
Who Really Gains? James frames tax relief as simply helping the rich. In reality, lower taxes and lighter regulation give breathing room to the small businesses and working families who drive our communities. When we reduce barriers, it’s local shops that stay open, farmers who can keep their land, and new ventures that create local jobs. That’s how we grow opportunity from the ground up.
And on regulations—it’s worth remembering that not every rule is written with the public’s best interest in mind. Some mainly protect entrenched players and make it harder for the little guy to compete. Cutting back excessive red tape doesn’t mean ignoring safety or fairness; it means being smart about what truly serves the people.
Public Safety and Community Well-Being James worries about funding shifts toward border security and law enforcement. But most Americans agree that protecting communities and upholding our immigration laws is simply responsible governance. We can—and must—do this with compassion, ensuring families are treated humanely, while still respecting our nation’s laws and sovereignty.
Programs like Medicaid aren’t being abandoned. They’re being adjusted so they’ll still be there for the most vulnerable years from now. Without reform, these programs risk collapse under their own weight—hurting exactly those who rely on them most.
Science, Education, and Diverse Support It’s also not accurate to say this budget attacks science or learning. In truth, it reins in sprawling federal agencies so they stay focused on real, measurable priorities. Great research and education often come from a wide mix of funding sources—public, private, local—which together keep ideas vibrant and less subject to political swings.
Some fear this means less independent thought. I’d argue that empowering local schools, local boards, and a diversity of funders actually encourages more viewpoints, not fewer. It helps guard against echo chambers and groupthink.
Checks on Power, Not Concentrations of It James worries about “executive flexibility,” seeing it as a step toward authoritarianism. But pushing more control down to states and communities—closer to voters—is the best safeguard against abuse. A distant, oversized bureaucracy is much harder for everyday citizens to hold accountable than local leaders you see at church or the grocery store.
Building Together At its heart, this budget is about trusting Americans. Trusting them to work hard, start businesses, care for their families, and shape their own futures. It seeks to encourage building, not dependency. It protects our borders, respects taxpayers, and ensures government doesn’t overshadow the very people it’s meant to serve.
I believe we share more than we sometimes admit. We all want a nation where people are safe, where the vulnerable are cared for, and where opportunity is real. We may disagree on how best to get there, but that conversation—carried out in good faith—is exactly what keeps our Republic healthy.
James sees creeping authoritarianism. I see an earnest effort to renew the promise of self-government, so power truly rests where it belongs: with the people. That’s not a threat to democracy—it’s the surest way to preserve it.