Fact check: Name the programs that Vought has cut so far

1. What the question actually asks — and why sources come up short

The original request seeks a list of programs that Russell Vought “has cut so far,” but the available reporting does not supply an itemized tally. Multiple pieces note that Vought and the administration have refused to provide program-level details about how rescissions or shutdown cuts would be implemented, and that a public list of specific programs had not been released by the time of those reports ^{[1] [5]}. Coverage frames the administration’s posture as promising eliminations of “Democrat programs” or broad categories of spending, not enumerating discrete grant programs, lines in agency budgets, or named federal initiatives that have already been eliminated. That gap is central: absence of a list in primary reporting means there is no verified, contemporary catalog to reproduce.

2. What reporters do attribute to Vought — proposals and agency-level aims, not program-by-program kills

Reporting ties Vought to an administrative vision of shrinking the federal government and to concrete proposals to eliminate entire agencies or statutory authorities, most notably mentions of seeking to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau as part of the broader agenda ^[2]. Articles and committee statements emphasize that Vought shaped the plan to "fire civil servants, freeze programs, and dismantle agencies," portraying a strategic intent rather than documenting completed, program-level cuts. This distinction matters: policy design and public intent are recorded, but journalistic sources do not confirm completed eliminations of specific federally funded programs attributed directly to Vought.

3. Personnel actions and layoffs reported as underway — different from program termination

Multiple reports document mass layoff notices and efforts to fire federal employees during the government shutdown, actions that White House officials including the budget office signaled would affect thousands of workers (estimates ranging from several thousand to over 10,000) ^{[3] [6] [7]}. Courts temporarily enjoined some of those firing plans, and coverage focuses on human impacts and legal challenges. These personnel moves are tangible administrative steps linked to the budget office’s strategy, but they are not the same as a transparent list of program eliminations; reporters distinguish between layoffs and program rescissions in their accounts.

4. Program delays and cuts in defense modernization — budget caps plus administration choices, not a Vought checklist

Reporting about the Navy’s modernization shows significant cuts and schedule changes — for example, reductions in funding for the F/A-XX next‑generation fighter and delays to Large Unmanned Surface Vessel procurement — and attributes these to fiscal constraints under budget caps and reprioritization choices ^{[4] [8]}. Analysts and officials cite the Fiscal Responsibility Act caps and Pentagon trade-offs as causal factors. Coverage sometimes links OMB-level decision-making to these outcomes, but it does not present a definitive chain proving that Vought personally ordered specific program terminations; the record shows program-level impacts from broader budget discipline rather than a single-source cut list.

5. Bottom line: there is no verified “cut list” to hand — here’s what to watch next

Based on the assembled reporting, there is no contemporaneous, sourced list of programs that Russell Vought has definitively cut; public statements and committee filings emphasize intent to cut, agency elimination proposals, and mass personnel actions, while program-level reporting points to budget-driven delays in defense programs rather than named Vought cuts ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. To get a verifiable list if one appears, monitor OMB or Treasury rescission notices, agency budget execution reports, and formal rescission legislation text — those documents would show line-item rescissions or statutory eliminations. Watch congressional appropriations committee releases and court rulings for finalized outcomes and attribution.