Return control of spending apportionments to political appointees
What the document says“No Director should be chosen who is unwilling to restore apportionment decision-making to the PADs’ personal review”
Apportionment is the process by which OMB releases appropriated funds to agencies in instalments under the Anti-Deficiency Act of 1870. The chapter records that these were signed by career officials until the Trump Administration moved the responsibility to political appointees, that the Biden Administration reversed this, and says no OMB Director should be chosen who is unwilling to restore it, unwilling to wield the tool aggressively, or unable to defend it against Congress.
What the document actually says“No Director should be chosen who is unwilling to restore apportionment decision-making to the PADs’ personal review”
Do not pick a budget chief who will not give this job back to political staff.
Congress votes money to agencies. The budget office hands it out in parts. It can slow money down or attach terms. The book says political staff should sign off on that, not career staff.
Ensuring Accountability for All Agencies
2025-02-18 · 90 FR 10447
Section 5 directs the Director of the Office of Management and Budget to review independent regulatory agencies' obligations for consistency with the President's policies and priorities on an ongoing basis and to adjust those agencies' apportionments by activity, function, project or object, including by prohibiting spending on particular activities where consistent with law. Apportionment decisions are placed with a politically appointed officer and used as a policy instrument, which is the direction the passage argues for. It does not do what the quoted sentence asks: it does not restore apportionment decision-making to the personal review of the Program Associate Directors, says nothing about who signs an apportionment document, and reaches only independent regulatory agencies rather than the executive branch generally.
The order lets the budget chief check and adjust how some agencies spend. That puts the choice in a political hand, as the chapter wanted. But it names no such role for the staff the chapter named. And it reaches only the independent agencies, not the whole branch.