Does Trump have the power to block spending that Congress has authorized?

Boston Globe

28-01-2025

Advertisement
Here is a closer look at the attempt.
What has Trump done?
In his first week in office, Trump barred spending on certain initiatives whose mission he disagreed with, including programs involving 'diversity, equity and inclusion' and funding to nongovernmental organizations he believes undermine the national interest. He also ordered a 90-day freeze on all foreign aid spending to review it for any conflicts with his priorities, making exceptions for military assistance to Israel and Egypt.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday, Wednesday, and Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
That freeze has jeopardized a broad swath of congressionally authorized aid, like military assistance to Ukraine in its fight against Russia's invasion, helping pay the salaries of a Kurdish-led militia guarding Islamic State detainees in northeast Syria, and the distribution of anti-HIV medication in Africa and developing countries.
By the start of his second week, Trump signaled an escalation. On Monday, the White House, in a memo, ordered a temporary halt to 'all federal financial assistance' like loans and grants on domestic soil as well. While Social Security and Medicare were exempted, the memo said it would apply to as much as $3 trillion in government programs and activities.
Should the freeze become permanent for a program that Congress approved but the White House does not like, it could set off a court fight over the constitutionality of a law banning unilateral 'impoundment' by presidents.
What is impoundment?
Impoundment is the act by a president to withhold or delay the spending of funds that Congress has appropriated for the federal government to disburse.
Advertisement
While it is routine for the executive branch to hold back some authorized spending if it is able to come in under budget while still accomplishing Congress's goal, the practice becomes contentious when a president refuses to spend money Congress has appropriated for a program because he objects to it.
Congress essentially banned presidents from unilaterally and permanently impounding funds in a 1974 law. But during the presidential campaign, Trump, in a video on his campaign website, vowed to restore the power so that he could 'squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings.'
Legalizing permanent impoundment would transfer power from Congress to the presidency.
The founders devised the separation of powers to keep each branch from accumulating too much authority and posing a threat to liberty. Central to that is Congress's control of decisions about taxation and spending — its power of the purse.
In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote that this power was a 'most complete and effectual weapon' for elected lawmakers to wield.
But supporters of concentrating more power in the presidency argue that the Constitution gives the president the authority to choose not to execute particular spending provisions Congress has written into the law. They say the phrase 'the president shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed' should be interpreted to allow for that.
What would impoundment mean for spending cuts?
Permanent impoundment would make it easier to restrain federal spending.
In an era of persistent budget deficits and mounting federal debt, people who think the government spends too much have grown frustrated with Congress's record and sought ways to expand presidential power to cancel some of lawmakers' spending decisions. In 1996, for example, Congress passed a law that would allow presidents to veto specific line items in spending bills, rather than having to accept or veto the entire legislative package. But the Supreme Court struck down that law as unconstitutional.
Advertisement
Is unilateral and permanent impoundment lawful?
Not under current federal law, with narrow exceptions.
There are rare examples of presidents impounding funds for certain programs dating to the early 19th century. But the practice became more common during the 20th century, especially with vast spending during the Cold War era on weapons and disputes between presidents and Congress over which to buy.
The practice peaked under Nixon, who impounded billions lawmakers had appropriated for matters including highway spending and pollution control. In response, Congress in 1974 sought to restore its power of the purse by enacting a law called the Impoundment Control Act.
The statute outlawed the ability of presidents to unilaterally and permanently rescind congressional funding decisions. Instead, it set up a narrow procedure by which presidents could submit proposed cuts to Congress for approval. Without it, the funds eventually had to be spent.
While the Trump White House publicly disclosed the 'temporary' freezes in broad strokes in an executive order and the memo, it is not clear whether it sent any such notice to Congress.
This article originally appeared in