With a flurry of orders, a test of Congress, power of the purse

By: Dace Potas
USA Today

..... President Donald Trump;s spending freeze has been blocked by courts, marking one of the first blows to Trump's plan to use executive power to curb spending.
..... The main issue hindering the Trump administration's plan, though, is that the president is obligated to spend funds appropriated by Congress.
..... That's something he had been openly hostile toward.
..... The Trump administration is once again pushing the boundaries of the law to get a case to the Supreme Court.
..... Unfortunately for him, it is unlikely the court will rule in the president's favor. It was one of several times a judge has ruled against Trump since Inauguration Day. [01/20/2025]
..... It probably won't be the last.
..... For those unfamiliar with the U.S. budget process, Congress has the power of the purse, meaning lawmakers get to decide how much is spent and on what. The president's responsibility is to facilitate that spending and ensure funding reaches its intended destination.
..... You may ask, "what if the president simply chooses not to spend money on purposes he dislikes?"
..... This practice, referred to as impoundments, may be unconstitutional and has been addressed by legislation.
..... The impoundments Control Act (ICA) requires the president to notify Congress of a proposed withholding of funds for 45 days, and Congress must affirm the impoundments if funds are to be withhold.
..... However, an important caveat is that the act does not obligate Congress to provide any feedback at all. If Congress, simply ignores the impoundments request, the funds must be released after 45 days regardless.
..... Presidential impoundments under the ICA, therefore, functions more as a recommendation to Congress.
..... Before becoming president for a second term, Trump hinted that his administration would have a hostile stance toward ICA, and his actions thus far indicate that they are attempting to get a case addressing it to the supreme Court.

System working in Trump's favor so long as Republicans do nothing

..... Congress should be voting on these presidential impoundments in a timely manner, as the process is intended to function. However, lawmakers have no incentive to do so.
..... For the GOP-controlled Congress, this system is working in its favor, and Republicans can allow Trump to stall funding for 45 days at a time.
..... However, funds being withheld for 45 days with no congressional action can case problems for agencies that rely on appropriations.
..... Some experts have suggested that Congress should amend the ICA to require lawmakers to vote one way or the other on presidential impoundments, but legislators typically aren't too keen on creating more work for themselves.
..... Judges were quick to halt Trump's initial spending freeze, and swift legal action would likely be taken if Trump refused to spend further funds.
..... As usual, the likely outcome is that the Supreme Court will be tasked with sorting out the mess between Congress and the executive . So Trump can insist that he has the power to withhold funds as long as Congress continues to do nothing.
..... Democratic lawmakers have argued that a Supreme Court case called Train v. City of New York had already ruled president la impoundments unconstitutional, even without the Impoundments Control Act. The justices ruled unanimously in 1975 that the head of the Environmental Portentous Agency could not withhold funds allotted to states by Congress.
..... There is another reason to believe that the Supreme Court is likely to disagree with Trump;s assertion that the president has a constitutional right to impound. In a 2013 opinion, then-Judge Brett Kavanaugh wrote that "a President sometimes has policy reasons for wanting to spend less than the full amount appropriated by Congress for a particular project or program. But in those circumstances, even the President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend the funds."
..... "Instead, the President must propose the rescission of funds, and Congress then may decide whether to approve a rescissions bill."

Don't automatically count on conservative justices

..... Che if Justice John Roberts expressed sympathy for this position in a 1985 memo but in an actual case.
..... along with the liberal justices, and the pervading historical consensus among the conservative justices, the Supreme Court is unlikely to find that Trump has the authority to blatantly withhold funds that have been appropriated by Congress, if a case arises to them.
..... Once again, the Supreme Court is likely to have to deal with Trump;s attempts to circumvent Congress.
..... The nation;s highest court is likely to pass judgment telling Congress to do its job in curtailing spending and telling Trump that he does not have power over the purse.

..... Dace Potas is an opinion columnist for USA Today and a graduate of DePaul University with a degree in political science.

HOME