Already on a budgeting path to trim $2 trillion in government spending over the next decade, congressional Republicans are openly discussing employing two unconventional weapons to enact further cuts: rescission legislation and presidential impoundment.

Most Americans have hardly ever heard such terms, but they are getting thrown around a lot on Capitol Hill these days. And there's hope President Donald Trump will launch both into action.

"He can do it through Congress with a rescission bill," Rep. Andy Harris, R-Md., the chairman of the fiscally conservative House Freedom Caucus, told the Just the News, No Noise television show this week. "But I believe he has the power to do it through impoundment. I believe that when Congress passed an appropriation bill, it sets a ceiling, it doesn't set a concrete floor."

Rescission bills revoke funding that was previously allocated during the appropriations process. Proposed by the president, they are considered under an expedited process and cannot be filibustered in the Senate, allowing their passage with just 51 votes instead of 60.

Impoundment, in which a president declines to spend the full amount allocated by Congress for a program, is an executive power likely to be tested in the courts.

After former President Richard Nixon used impoundment liberally a half century ago, Congress passed the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act 1974, which introduced the new tool of rescission bills, which must be approved by both the House and the Senate.

Harris suggested that law and the Constitution's executive powers may be in conflict, prompting a possible impoundment “showdown” in the courts.

In an opinion piece for The Hill newspaper, attorneys Mark Paoletta and Daniel Shapiro argued that “far from being a disturbing break with law and practice, Trump’s defense of the impoundment authority is deeply rooted in our constitutional system, good governance norms and American history and tradition.

"Presidents from both parties have criticized the act’s restrictions on the president’s ability to impound funds to reduce federal spending," they wrote.

One way or another, the process of eliminating large blocs of federal spending is already under way inside the Trump administration. 

In one department alone, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), Secretary of State Marco Rubio has slated 83% of programs to be terminated. 

Rubio clarified that in alignment with this administration’s foreign policy priorities, “the 5,200 contracts that are now cancelled spent tens of billions of dollars in ways that did not serve, (and in some cases even harmed), the core national interests of the United States."

A member of the House Budget Committee told the Furthermore with Amanda Head podcast there is lots of optimism for the rescission route: “It takes 50 in the Senate, and I think the House would pass it," Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C., said. 

Remarking on a number of alleged line items of “waste, fraud and abuse” such as payments to news organizations like Politico and U.S. taxpayers funding condoms for other nations, “it’s ridiculous, but once they see where the money is going, put it in a rescission package and make it codified," Norman said.

Texas Rep. Troy Nehls told the John Solomon Reports podcast he's equally bullish on rescissions.

"This is the first time you’ve had an administration, a president, take a deep dive and audit these agencies. Many of these agencies, they can’t even pass an audit.”

And as Elon Musk at DOGE continues to uncover reported fraud, Nehls said, “you heard President Trump last week talk about Social Security and people 100, 110, 120 or 130 years old collecting Social Security. That’s fraud and these people should be held accountable. Pam Bondi goes after them all and we put these people in jail if not prison because it’s fraud and it’s in the billions of dollars.”

Minority party Democrats have little to fight with, but all indications are they intend to try and most likely will use the courts as a venue.

House Democrats on the Appropriations Committee posted a document titled, “Background on Unlawful Impoundment in President Trump’s Executive Orders."

That memo argues that in a number of areas including aid, foreign policy and energy production, Trump’s executive orders and plans to impound funds are unlawful. 

Comparing the administration’s plans to impound to that of Nixon, Senator Ron Wyden-Ore., ranking member on the Senate Finance Committee, told The Independent, “I mean, this is Donald Trump outdoing Richard Nixon.”