#budget

Belgian Prime Minister Bart De Wever offered his resignation to King Philippe on Monday, November 2, after his five-party coalition failed to agree on the 2027 budget and a roughly €10 billion savings plan through 2029. The palace said the king "is holding his decision in suspense" and would consult the majority parties' leaders from Tuesday; De Wever was due back at the palace on Friday, November 6, after the cutoff. The king warned that "the country cannot afford a prolonged political crisis."

The dispute reportedly pits the francophone center-right MR against the centre-left Vooruit and Les Engagés, according to the Belga news agency as cited by Eunews. Belgium ran a deficit of 5% of GDP last year against the EU's 3% ceiling and is under an EU excessive deficit procedure. Under Belgium's constitution the king can refuse the resignation, keep it pending to give the parties time, or accept it and leave a caretaker government with limited powers. In November 2025, De Wever instead asked for a 50-day extension. Unions have called a national strike for November 23.

What happened

The Trump administration announced that it would cancel nearly $1 billion in spending previously approved by Congress, using a rarely invoked rescission mechanism. The targeted funds include immigrant-service and diversity-related programs.

Republican / administration case

The White House says the cuts eliminate wasteful or harmful spending and argues that the executive branch should not be forced to spend money on programs it considers contrary to administration priorities.

Democratic / critic case

Democrats argue that Congress has the constitutional power of the purse and that presidents cannot simply erase appropriations they dislike. Critics also object to the substance of cuts aimed at immigration and diversity programs.

Libertarian / Cato case

Cato scholars have argued for substantial spending restraint but against unilateral presidential impoundment, saying Congress should make the cuts itself. Their concern is that expanding executive control over spending weakens separation of powers regardless of which party controls the presidency.

Where the disagreement really is

This splits what should be cut from who has the authority to cut it. A person can favor lower spending while opposing unilateral presidential control over appropriations.