Article Summary –
The article discusses the conflict between President Trump’s administration and Congress regarding federal spending, highlighting that the U.S. Constitution and the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 prevent the executive branch from unilaterally impounding appropriated funds. It outlines historical attempts by presidents, notably Richard Nixon, to withhold funds against Congress’s appropriations, which led to the enactment of the Impoundment Control Act requiring presidential requests to rescind appropriations to be approved by Congress. Despite being previously found in violation of this law, Trump has criticized it as unconstitutional and proposed using impoundment to cut various programs in his 2024 campaign, facing opposition from Congressional Democrats who argue that such actions undermine democracy and economic stability.
As President Donald Trump seeks to halt federal funding on disfavored areas, Congress emphasizes that the executive branch lacks the authority to impound appropriations, as per the Constitution and a 51-year-old law.
What is the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974? Why was it enacted by Congress?
The Constitution
Article 1, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution outlines Congress’ limits, stating: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law.” Congress crafts spending laws, which the president can sign or veto, then the executive branch enforces them.
Presidential attempts to delay funds allocated by Congress are termed impoundment. Per a 2010 Congressional Research Service report, impoundment attempts date back to the early 1800s.
In 1972, President Richard Nixon opposed domestic spending programs and chose to withhold funds intended for housing, disaster relief, and clean water, instead of working with Congress to amend the law.
Impoundment Control Act
To safeguard the appropriations process, Congress overwhelmingly voted to enact the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974, requiring presidents to seek approval from both the House and Senate to rescind appropriations.
Nixon signed the Act on July 12, allowing presidents to delay spending for up to 45 days while Congress is in session, pending congressional agreement.
This law has stood for over five decades.
Trump’s view
The U.S. Government Accountability Office ruled in January 2020 that Trump violated the law by withholding $214 million in security funds for Ukraine in 2019. Trump, simultaneously pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political adversaries, denied any misconduct. Impeached in December 2019, he was acquitted in February 2020.
In his 2024 campaign, Trump advocated for impoundment to “Slash Waste, Stop Inflation, and Crush the Deep State,” labeling the Act unconstitutional and vowing to contest it in court.
Congressional Democrats argue Trump is mistaken. “Unilaterally slashing lawfully appropriated funds would be a severe power grab,” stated House Budget Committee’s Brendan Boyle in a November statement. “House Democrats are ready to counter any illegal attempt to undermine programs that support American families.”
On Jan. 27, the White House issued a memorandum freezing disbursements for foreign aid, NGOs, DEI, gender ideologies, and green initiatives. The memorandum was withdrawn after a federal judge temporarily blocked its implementation.
What could be affected
If presidents ignore appropriation laws, all federal spending could be impacted.
Trump has opposed programs like the Affordable Care Act, Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, Department of Education, and FEMA. Allowing impoundment could lead to cuts in these and other programs without congressional action.
Attempts to reach the White House press office for comment were unsuccessful.
—
Read More Pennsylvania News
