As "The Constitutional Critic," I’ve taken a hard look at the Presidential Sequestration Order for Fiscal Year 2026, issued by President Donald Trump on May 30, 2025, and published in the Federal Register on June 5, 2025. My mission is to scrutinize this document through the lens of the U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the principles of the Founding Fathers, with an eye toward any potential erosion of individual liberties, state sovereignty, or the balance of power. Let’s break this down systematically, exposing what’s stated, what’s hidden, and what might threaten the constitutional framework.
Summary of the Document
This order, issued under the authority of Section 251A of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act (as amended, 2 U.S.C. 901a), mandates a reduction in direct spending budgetary resources for fiscal year 2026 across non-exempt budget accounts. The reductions are to be calculated by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) as detailed in their May 30, 2025, report to Congress. The sequestration—automatic spending cuts—will take effect on October 1, 2025, and must adhere strictly to the requirements of the Act and OMB’s specifications.
Government’s Stated Rationale
The publicly stated purpose of this order aligns with the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act’s intent: to enforce fiscal discipline by imposing automatic spending cuts when budgetary targets are not met. The government frames this as a necessary mechanism to control federal deficits and ensure long-term economic stability. President Trump’s order presents itself as a procedural formality, simply executing a pre-existing statutory requirement to reduce spending in non-exempt areas as calculated by OMB.
Underlying Motives and Potential Hypocrisy
While the stated rationale sounds fiscally responsible, let’s not be naive. Sequestration, as a policy, often serves as a political tool rather than a genuine commitment to deficit reduction. Historically, both parties have used it to avoid tough, direct decisions on spending cuts while claiming to champion fiscal conservatism. Under President Trump’s second term, this order could be a way to deflect blame for unpopular cuts—pointing to the Act and OMB calculations as “out of his hands”—while potentially prioritizing reductions that align with specific political or ideological goals not explicitly disclosed in this brief order.
What’s buried here? The order doesn’t specify which programs or accounts face cuts, leaving that to the OMB’s report, which isn’t public in this document. This opacity raises red flags. Are cuts targeting social programs, defense, or other areas that might disproportionately affect certain demographics or states? Without transparency, this order could mask selective austerity that benefits certain interests—perhaps corporate or military-industrial allies—while slashing safety nets for everyday Americans. The Founding Fathers, particularly Jefferson and Madison, warned against unchecked executive power and opaque governance. This delegation to OMB, while legal under the Act, skirts direct accountability and could hide executive manipulation of fiscal priorities.
Potential Erosion of Rights and Liberties
At first glance, a sequestration order doesn’t scream “constitutional violation.” It’s a budgetary mechanism, not a direct assault on the Bill of Rights. However, dig deeper, and the implications become concerning. If cuts disproportionately affect programs tied to constitutional protections—say, funding for public defenders (Sixth Amendment right to counsel) or federal oversight of voting rights (Fifteenth Amendment)—this could indirectly undermine individual liberties. The lack of specificity in the order means we can’t rule out such impacts until the OMB report is scrutinized.
Moreover, the broader issue of federal overreach looms. The Balanced Budget Act’s sequestration mechanism centralizes immense power in the federal government, particularly the executive branch via OMB, to dictate spending cuts without granular legislative input at the moment of execution. This undermines the separation of powers envisioned by the Founders. Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution vests Congress with the power of the purse, yet sequestration shifts significant control to unelected bureaucrats and the President. Madison, in Federalist No. 58, emphasized Congress’s budgetary authority as a check on executive tyranny. Here, that check is diluted, and states—whose programs may be cut—have little immediate recourse, threatening federalism.
Political Manipulation and Special Interests
Let’s talk about who benefits. Sequestration isn’t a neutral axe; it’s a scalpel wielded with intent, even if the cuts are “automatic.” Exemptions under the Act often protect powerful lobbies—think defense contractors or certain entitlement programs with vocal constituencies—while less politically connected areas get gutted. Under Trump’s administration, with its history of prioritizing deregulation and corporate interests, it’s not a stretch to speculate that cuts could be structured to minimize impact on sectors aligned with his base or donors, while neglecting others. The OMB’s role in calculating cuts provides a convenient shield for political favoritism, hidden behind technocratic jargon.
Additionally, this order’s timing—issued in May 2025 for FY 2026—could be a preemptive move to shape the narrative ahead of midterm elections or other political battles. By locking in cuts now, the administration might aim to force Congress into a corner, limiting future budgetary debates to favor Trump’s fiscal agenda. This isn’t governance; it’s gamesmanship, and it risks sidelining the democratic process the Founders intended to protect.
Educating Everyday Americans: What’s Hidden?
Here’s what the government isn’t shouting from the rooftops: sequestration isn’t just about “balancing the budget.” It’s a blunt instrument that can disproportionately harm vulnerable populations—think Medicaid, education, or housing programs—while sparing politically sensitive areas. The order’s brevity and reliance on an unreleased OMB report mean most Americans won’t know what’s being cut until it’s too late. This lack of transparency is a deliberate feature, not a bug, allowing the government to avoid immediate backlash.
Furthermore, the long-term effect of repeated sequestrations is a hollowing out of federal services, which can erode trust in government and push burdens onto states or individuals. The Founders didn’t envision a federal government that shirks its duties through automatic cuts while maintaining vast executive control over the process. This order, though seemingly mundane, perpetuates a system that could weaken the social contract between government and citizen.
Constitutional Critique and Call to Action
While this sequestration order doesn’t explicitly violate the Constitution, it operates within a framework that strains the separation of powers and federalism. The delegation of detailed budgetary cuts to OMB, with minimal real-time congressional oversight, undermines Article I’s clear assignment of fiscal authority to the legislature. It also risks indirect harm to constitutional rights if essential programs tied to those rights are slashed without accountability.
I’m not here to mince words: this order, and the sequestration mechanism itself, reflects a government more interested in political convenience than constitutional fidelity. The Founding Fathers built a system of checks and balances to prevent exactly this kind of unaccountable power creep. If cuts must happen, they should be debated openly in Congress, not dictated by executive fiat or bureaucratic reports hidden from public view.
My advice to everyday Americans? Demand transparency. Contact your representatives and insist on access to the OMB’s May 30, 2025, report. Scrutinize which programs are cut and hold both the administration and Congress accountable for any erosion of services or rights. The Constitution isn’t just a document; it’s a shield for your liberties. Don’t let opaque orders like this one chip away at it without a fight.
As "The Constitutional Critic," I’ll keep watching, questioning, and exposing. Government overreach—whether through sequestration or otherwise—will never get a free pass on my watch. Stay vigilant.