Today, Project 2025’s “chief architect” Russ Vought is back on Capitol Hill after failing to answer direct questions in his last committee hearing to be Donald Trump’s OMB Director. The last time he was before a Senate committee, Vought left plenty of questions unanswered, from his views on slashing benefits for veterans to putting his loyalty to Trump over Americans’ safety and security. 

As he testifies in front of the Senate Budget Committee today, here are a few of the answers he still owes the American people:

Does Vought still stand behind his Project 2025 agenda to gut Social Security and Medicare, give away billions to the ultra-wealthy, abolish the Department of Education, and enact a national abortion ban?

Heritage Foundation: “Should the Social Security Retirement Age Be Raised? Yes.”

Center for American Progress: “Raising the Retirement Age for Social Security Would Cut Benefits by Thousands of Dollars Each Year”

“Far-right plans, endorsed by Project 2025’s authors, to increase the full retirement age would cut benefits for nearly three-quarters of Americans and threaten low- and moderate-income workers with economic insecurity once they leave the workforce.”

Project 2025: “This ‘negotiation’ program should be repealed, and reforms in Part D that will have meaningful impact for seniors should be pursued.”

Project 2025: “The corporate income tax rate should be reduced to 18 percent.”

CBS News: “Millions of low- and middle-class households would likely face significantly higher taxes under the Project 2025’s proposals.”

Education Week: “Project 2025, a 900-page conservative policy agenda that proposes eliminating the U.S. Department of Education, has become a dominating force in the 2024 election campaign.” 

Rolling Stone: “Republicans’ Project 2025 blueprint spells out how they’ll leverage virtually every arm, tool and agency of the federal government to attack abortion.”

“GOP operatives have already crafted an expansive blueprint, 887 pages long, laying out in painstaking detail how they intend to govern, including plans to leverage virtually every arm, tool and agency of the federal government to attack abortion access.”

Why does Vought still want to cut and restrict veterans’ disability benefits? 

Sen. Richard Blumenthal: “Do you believe there should be a means test for disability benefits going to veterans?”

Vought: *Doesn’t answer*

Sen. Blumenthal: “You’re not going to answer that question but you have in the past taken the position that there should be a means test.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego: “We heard obviously what Senator Blumenthal said about potentially, you know, your past position that people below 30% VA disability should have that disability cut off altogether. … What was your thought process back in the day in terms of your belief of why that was a good program?” …

Vought: “I’m not here on behalf of proposals that [I] as president of the CRA might have put forward.” 

Would Vought follow Trump’s orders to play politics with disaster relief? 

Sen. Maggie Hassan: “If confirmed, do you commit to ensuring that agencies do not review a grant application submitted by a state based on that state’s political makeup? Whether it is red, blue, or purple?”

Vought: “Again, senator, the extent to which we make decisions will be based on the policy grounds, the agenda of the president of the United States, we will continue to do that.” 

Sen. Hassan: “If the president says to you, I don’t care what the law says, I don’t like California and I’m not going to give them the disaster aid they need, you are going to stand up to the president and say sir, that is not appropriate?” 

Vought: “Senator, I don’t engage in hypotheticals.” 

Does Vought believe his own interpretation of the Constitution supersedes Congress and the Supreme Court? 

Sen. Elissa Slotkin: “And your interpretation [of the Constitution] does not, pardon the pun, trump the interpretation of the Supreme Court or current practice on the books?”

Vought: *Refuses to answer question*

Sen. Slotkin: “This is what I am saying, you can see how this bureaucratic wonky answer you keep giving, right? … I just want to hear that when you hold up your hand, like many of us have done in this room to put themselves in harm’s way, that you’re gonna protect and defend the Constitution as interpreted by the people who are in a position to interpret it.” 

Why does Vought want to use government shutdowns as a bargaining chip, putting Americans’ safety and national security at risk?

Sen. Maggie Hassan: “Government shutdowns put public safety and our national security at risk. But you have repeatedly, Mr. Vought, called for brinksmanship around government shutdowns and opposed bipartisan deals to keep the government open. Why have you repeatedly advocated the use of the threat of a government shutdown is a political bargaining chip? If confirmed, would you continue to favor a partisan agenda over keeping the government open?” 

Vought: *Dodges*

Sen. Hassan: “There seems to be kind of a confirmation conversion because your words in articles and in talks reflect a different view about the use of government shutdowns. … The impact of government shutdowns … impacts the American people in significant ways.”

Does Vought stand by his comments calling public servants “villains”? 

Sen. Andy Kim: “You said in your written testimony … ‘We want the bureaucrats to be traumatically affected. When they wake up in the morning, we want them not to want to go to work because they are increasingly viewed as villains. We want to put them in trauma.’ … Why you would use a language like villains in talking about people serving our nation?” 

Vought: *Dodges*