President Donald Trump signed an executive order Monday blocking federal agencies from doling out funds that Congress has already authorized—potentially the start of a bigger battle over whether he can refuse to disburse government funds allocated by Congress, which Trump and his allies argue he should be able to do in spite of a federal law forbidding it.
President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, ... [+]
Trump has long suggested he wants to halt federal spending that Congress has authorized—known as impoundment—saying in a 2023 campaign video he wants to use impoundment “to squeeze the bloated federal bureaucracy for massive savings.”
In an executive order Monday, Trump directed federal agencies to pause the disbursement of funds that were appropriated through the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act until officials “have determined that such disbursements are consistent with” the administration’s goals on increasing energy production—which will affect funding for infrastructure projects and climate change initiatives, among other recipients.
Impoundment, the practice of presidents declining to spend money Congress has appropriated, has a long history, with multiple presidents dating back to Thomas Jefferson taking some action against federal spending.
After President Richard Nixon took impoundment to an extreme and canceled billions of dollars in spending, Congress passed the Impoundment Control Act, which says presidents can only use the impoundment power by submitting requests to Congress about funds they don’t want to disburse; lawmakers then have to approve those requests within 45 days, otherwise the funds are released.
Trump and his allies, including incoming Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, have argued the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and the president has expansive power to cancel congressionally authorized spending, going against the prevailing interpretation of federal law, which is that presidents cannot unilaterally cancel congressional funds.
Proponents of the Impoundment Control Act argue presidents have always had limited power to cancel federal spending and the act just clarified existing restrictions on presidents’ authority—a view that’s been backed up by the courts—while Trump and his allies argue presidents have broad power to withhold funds and the Impoundment Control Act unlawfully limited their constitutional authority.
It’s unclear. During his confirmation hearing before the Senate Budget Committee Wednesday, Vought, who will be tasked with disbursing federal funds if confirmed, denied Trump violated the Impoundment Control Act with his executive order halting some federal funding. Trump just paused the funding from being given out while his administration assesses the situation, Vought argued. That being said, Vought—a key architect of the controversial policy blueprint Project 2025—refused to explicitly say Trump’s administration would follow the Impoundment Control Act, which he said both he and Trump believe is unconstitutional. Trump officials will examine what can be done under the law, Vought said, but deflected when senators asked him whether he would follow the law as it now stands.
The funding that Trump has already halted has left infrastructure projects across the country in limbo and affects a number of climate change initiatives implemented through the Biden-era Inflation Reduction Act. Vought was also noncommittal during his confirmation hearing before the Senate Homeland Security Committee about whether he would disburse congressionally approved aid to Ukraine, saying he didn’t want to get ahead of Trump’s foreign policy plans. Trump could ultimately use impoundment to cut off funding that deals with any number of other major governmental issues, including money going toward disaster relief, education, social welfare programs or public health, among numerous other recipients.
Mark Paoletta, an attorney whom Trump has appointed to serve as general counsel of the Office of Management and Budget, suggested on social media in November after Trump’s election that it is “time for [Trump] to reassert” his impoundment authority “to help stop the spending madness.” “Impound, Baby, Impound!” Paoletta, a longtime critic of the Impoundment Control Act, wrote.
The dispute over the Impoundment Control Act and whether Trump can take action against congressionally approved funds could be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court previously ruled against Nixon’s use of impoundment in the 1975 case Train v. City of New York, a dispute over Nixon withholding funding toward water treatment, though the court noted in its ruling that the Impoundment Control Act was passed while the case was pending and the court’s ruling didn’t impact it and wasn’t affected by it. In an opinion years later in the case Clinton v. City of New York, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote, “President Nixon, the Mahatma Gandhi of all impounders, asserted at a press conference in 1973 that his ‘constitutional right’ to impound appropriated funds was ‘absolutely clear.’ … Our decision two years later in Train v. City of New York proved him wrong.” (He noted Congress can authorize the president to cancel funds, as the Impoundment Control Act allows.) It remains to be seen how the current 6-3 conservative court could come down on the issue, however. Though the court limited the executive branch’s power to create policies during the Biden administration, giving Congress more authority, justices also expanded Trump’s personal presidential power in their ruling last year giving him some immunity from criminal prosecution.
Democrats have staunchly criticized Trump’s efforts to oppose the Impoundment Control Act, and lashed out at Vought during his confirmation hearings before two Senate committees as he refused to say the Trump administration would follow the law. “I am astonished and aghast that someone in this responsible a position would, in effect, say, that the president is above the law, and that the United States Supreme Court is entitled to their opinion, but mine should supersede it,” Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., told Vought at a hearing last week. “I think our colleagues should be equally aghast, because I think this issue goes beyond Republican or Democrat … it’s whether the law of the land should prevail or maybe it’s up for grabs depending on what the president thinks.”
Any moves Trump makes to curb Congress’ appropriations authority and usurp the Impoundment Control Act could be criticized even by Republican senators, though it still remains to be seen how many GOP lawmakers could push back against Trump. While Republicans in Congress have been largely deferential to Trump and his positions, taking a stand in favor of the president’s impoundment power could be politically disadvantageous, as it would weaken their own authority and mean that a future Democratic president could cancel funds for GOP priorities. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., suggested during Vought’s confirmation hearing before the Senate Homeland Security Committee that he would oppose an expansive view of presidential impoundment powers, saying he was “sympathetic” to Democratic senators’ criticism of Vought’s refusal to follow the Impoundment Control Act. “I think if we appropriate something for a cause, that’s where it’s supposed to go,” Paul said, though he argued lawmakers right now give too much “latitude” to the president and need to do a better job of writing laws in a way that ensures presidents can’t exercise too much authority over funds. Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., also suggested Wednesday during Vought’s hearing before the Senate Budget Committee he could be opposed to the Trump nominee’s position, saying he has “concerns” about the issues over the Impoundment Control Act, but would elaborate on those concerns at a later time.
Trump has established the “Department of Government Efficiency” (DOGE) as part of his broader goal of reducing government spending, which will be run by billionaire Elon Musk. In an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, Musk and former DOGE co-chair Vivek Ramaswamy railed against the Impoundment Control Act, writing, “Mr. Trump has previously suggested this statute is unconstitutional, and we believe the current Supreme Court would likely side with him on this question.” It still remains to be seen what actions DOGE will take on government spending and whether any of them will run afoul of the impoundment law, however, as Musk and Ramaswamy—who left DOGE to run for Ohio governor—noted many of their plans would target spending within the executive branch.
Trump’s vow to use impoundment comes after the president attempted to use the power several times during his first term—most notably when he didn’t pay aid to Ukraine, which led to his first impeachment. Trump was impeached for allegedly using the congressionally approved aid to Ukraine as a bargaining chip when trying to get Ukraine to investigate President Joe Biden, then the former vice president, and his family. Though Trump ultimately released the aid to Ukraine, the saga was at the heart of his first impeachment, and the Government Accountability Office later released a decision stating Trump’s Office and Management and Budget violated the Impoundment Control Act by withholding the Ukraine aid. “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” the office wrote.
Trump kicks off potentially messy fight over Biden’s infrastructure money (Politico)
This obscure budget procedure could be Trump’s biggest weapon (Vox)
What is impoundment? How Trump thinks he can control spending without Congress (CNN)