A feud over whether to constrain President Trump’s authority to ignore or shift funding that Congress approves is hamstringing bipartisan government funding negotiations, with the March 14 deadline to avert a shutdown fast approaching.

The partisan spat comes as Mr. Trump and his Department of Government Efficiency, led by billionaire Elon Musk, have taken what Democrats have called a “meat ax” to the federal government by freezing funds to programs they don’t like and firing workers across the executive branch. 

Democrats have said many of those actions violate the law, given that Congress holds the power of the purse under the Constitution. They’re wary of making a government spending deal with Republicans if Mr. Trump will just do what he wants, and are seeking extra protections written into any spending bills to ensure the president can’t flout the directives contained in them.

“We need to know Republicans are willing to work with us to protect Congress’ power of the purse — and I welcome any and all ideas they may have on how we can work together to do just that,” said Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee. 

The top Republicans and Democrats on the House and Senate Appropriations Committees have been back-channeling for weeks in an effort to negotiate a spending framework that appropriators will use to draft the 12 annual spending bills.

Both sides say they’re close to an agreement on the top line, or overall level of discretionary spending across the 12 bills. But Republicans say Democrats’ demand to include language restricting the president’s actions is holding up a deal. 

“Why in the world would a majority Republican Senate and a majority Republican House vote to limit the Republican president’s power? That’s just not realistic,” said House Appropriations Chairman Tom Cole, Oklahoma Republican.

Mr. Cole said such restrictions on presidential power have never been put in appropriations bills and that’s something congressional Republicans couldn’t and shouldn’t deliver with Mr. Trump holding the veto pen.

“That’s asking us to do something we never asked them to do, and I wouldn’t ask them to do,” he said. “They couldn’t do that with Joe Biden, and they shouldn’t.”

Asked if keeping the language out of the bills is a red line for Republicans, Mr. Cole said, “Pretty much, yeah.”

Mr. Cole and other House GOP appropriators met with House Speaker Mike Johnson, Louisiana Republican, on Tuesday evening, in which they agreed to stand firm against the Democrats’ demand. 

“We’re never going to stop the president from being able to do his job as president. That’d be ridiculous,” Rep. John Rutherford, Florida Republican, said, accusing Democrats of “grasping at straws.”

The speaker expressed a similar sentiment ahead of the meeting. 

“They want to limit, tie the hands of the president on what he is able to do with the expenditures in the executive branch,” Mr. Johnson said. “That’s never been done before.” 

House Appropriations ranking member Rosa DeLauro of Connecticut said the language Democrats are seeking to add to the appropriations bills would not place any new legal restrictions on Mr. Trump — that it’s more about sending a message as he flouts the law. 

“All we’re just asking is please follow the law, that the dollars that were intended to go for this or that are going for this or that,” she said. 

Mr. Cole did not dispute that Democrats want language that just reaffirms what is already law, but said Mr. Trump would never agree to it. 

Ms. DeLauro acknowledged that Democrats don’t need new language to enforce existing law through court challenges to Mr. Trump’s actions but said that’s “a lengthy process.”

If the two parties can’t work past the impasse, Mr. Cole said the backup option is another extension of current government funding levels and policies, known as a continuing resolution or CR. 

The government has already been running on a CR with last year’s funding levels for nearly five months, since fiscal 2025 began on Oct. 1. 

Republicans would rather pass another stopgap extending prior funding through Sept. 30, creating an effective year-long CR, than give in to Democrats’ demand. But they will need support from the minority party in either scenario because spending bills can be filibustered in the Senate, requiring 60 votes to clear, and many House Republicans reflexively oppose any CR. 

“Even a year-long CR has to be bipartisan,” Mr. Cole said. 

If the two parties can’t reach an agreement and pass some form of government funding by March 14, the government would shut down, save for essential operations. 

Mr. Musk is seemingly encouraging that, responding “sounds great” to a post from someone on X who suggested Democrats want to shut down the government.

“That’s one totally out-of-touch billionaire who needs a serious reality check. Elon may never depend on receiving benefits on time, but for everyone else, shutdowns are painful and costly,” Ms. Murray said. “Democrats, however, do not want a shutdown.”

She said Republicans who control Congress “should not follow Elon towards a shutdown” but will need Democratic votes to pass the spending bills and thus need to compromise.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, South Dakota Republican, said it is Democrats who are publicly talking about a government shutdown.

“We will do everything we can to make sure that the government stays up and running,” he said. “What form that takes remains to be seen, but we’re working all the options.”

Mr. Thune and Mr. Johnson have to tread carefully if they do cut a deal with Democrats on government funding because it could upset Republicans whose votes they need to pass other aspects of the party’s agenda through the budget reconciliation process, which is exempt from the Senate filibuster.

Mr. Johnson especially has little room to maneuver because he cannot afford more than a single GOP defection on party-line votes.

Rep. Chip Roy, Texas Republican, warned that a bipartisan government funding deal could “blow up” the reconciliation process if it increases spending.

For example, he said if GOP leaders struck a deal with Democrats to crank up Pentagon funding in the appropriations process and then asked Republicans to approve more defense spending in reconciliation — as they’re planning — he would take issue with the move.

“Don’t come to me and talk to me about how much we need to all be on the team if they’re going to go cut deals with Democrats on government funding,” he said.

• Lindsey McPherson can be reached at lmcpherson@washingtontimes.com.

• Alex Miller can be reached at amiller@washingtontimes.com.