Origin articleStored source

Congress wants its power of the purse back. It rarely puts it to good use

The Senate’s funding bill stops Trump from handing political appointees control of federal grants, but Congress isn’t eager to rein in spending.

Reason By Tosin Akintola Aug 5, 2026, 5:20 PM Captured Aug 5, 2026, 7:25 PM

Read the original Read Bold's report

Captured text

Source excerpt

4,581 extracted characters

You'd have an easier time hitting a fastball off Milwaukee Brewers phenom Jacob Misiorowski than getting Congress to take back wasteful spending it has appropriated, as the Trump administration is finding out.

On Monday, the Senate passed a continuing resolution to fund parts of the federal government through December 11.

The bill includes a provision that temporarily blocks the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) from implementing a rule change that would have given executive branch political appointees greater control over the disbursement of federal grants.

Proposed by the OMB in May, the rule has garnered over 62,123 public comments, most of which are in opposition.

Bold News stores the normalized extraction for evidence and analysis. This public wrapper shows a limited excerpt; use the original link for the publisher's complete presentation.

Framing report

Origin wording grade

A 5/100 risk

Grade A reflects 5/100 framing risk from editorial voice; each finding below is tied to stored wording.

Report confidence: 90%
Content format: opinion
Evidence findings: 1
Sentences checked: 32
Method: origin-framing-v2

Outlet context is separate libertarian-right (+55, 60% confidence). This profile does not change the article grade.

Evidence behind the grade

Editorial voicebody

+5 · 90% confidence

Of course, the best thing that Congress can do to curb the worst impulses of Trump and future presidents is to stop approving wasteful spending in the first place.

The sentence states an evaluation in the narrator's voice instead of attributing it to a named source. Its weight is reduced because this article is identified as opinion.

Useful context, not penalties

Opinion format 1
Argumentative wording is expected in this format, so narrator-voice and decision-pressure cues receive reduced weight.
Attributed claims 4
Attribution helps readers distinguish a source's claim from the article narrator's own assertion.

It would require "senior appointees" to review grant proposals for consistency with "applicable law, federal agency priorities, and the national interest." It also says agencies must ensure that funding proposals "advance the president's policy priorities."
Uncertainty qualifiers 2
Qualifiers such as may, might, or reportedly are disclosed as technique but do not add framing-risk points by themselves.

Proposed by the OMB in May, the rule has garnered over 62,123 public comments, most of which are in opposition.
Charged wording in quoted context 2
The wording was preserved as context but excluded from the grade because it appeared in an attributed quote or a legal/allegation context.

In her statement on the resolution, Collins said she was "pleased" that the bill "prevents" the OMB from implementing its proposed rule, which would "politicize grants" and "harm small, rural communities, families, and biomedical research." Murray was more direct, calling the rule a "corrupt policy that would allow [President Donald] Trump to hold even more federal grants hostage."

What this grade does and does not mean

This grade evaluates wording and reader-steering cues, not factual accuracy.
The outlet's general profile is separate context and does not affect this article grade.
Potential omissions require comparison with other reporting and are not graded from one article alone.