President Trump has moved aggressively to block the government from disbursing funds authorized by Congress for a range of programs, potentially seizing power from the legislative branch to wield greater say in public spending.
Even as the White House cast the step as a temporary freeze that would allow it to inspect spending to make sure that it does not conflict with Mr. Trump’s policy priorities, the move set off chaos and uncertainty for vast swaths of the federal government at home and abroad.
It also appears to plant the seeds of a potential Supreme Court fight over how much power a president has to refuse to spend money that Congress has appropriated, a tactic that lawmakers sharply curtailed under President Richard Nixon.
Here is a closer look.
What has Trump done?
In his first week in office, Mr. 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.
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-H.I.V. medication in Africa and developing countries.
By the start of his second week, Mr. 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 “impoundment.”
What is impoundment?
It is the act by a president to withhold or delay the spending of funds that Congress has appropriated for the federal government to disburse.
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 impounding funds in a 1974 law. But during the presidential campaign, Mr. 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.”
What would impoundment mean for presidential power?
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?
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.
Impoundment would be another way of essentially doing the same thing — if it is lawful.
Is 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 like 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 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 had to be spent.
What is Trump’s intent?
The administration has pushed back against dismayed reactions to its freeze. A senior administration official disputed that the halt amounted to “impoundment,” portraying it as merely a temporary pause until a review was conducted. Funding for programs that do not conflict with the administration’s policies can resume, the official added.
But that does not address what will happen to funds for programs that the administration determines are out of step with its priorities. The Trump campaign said explicitly that the president intended to challenge the constitutionality of the 1974 law restricting presidential impoundment power.
The campaign said he planned to direct agencies “on Day 1” to “identify portions of their budgets where massive savings are possible through the impoundment power.” And in the accompanying video, Mr. Trump said, “When I return to the White House, I will do everything I can to challenge the Impoundment Control Act in court, and if necessary, get Congress to overturn it.”
Be the first to comment