How Trump Aims to Reclaim Control Over Congressional Spending

Former President Donald Trump is set to assert a bold approach to federal budgeting as he embarks on a second presidential term. Instead of depending on Congress to enact spending reductions, Trump aims to implement a controversial legal interpretation that grants him sweeping authority to withhold funding from programs he opposes.

In a campaign video, Trump asserted, “We can simply choke off the money…. The president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending.” This strategy, referred to as “impoundment,” raises significant questions about presidential authority over fiscal matters, typically reserved for Congress under the Constitution.

The constitutional design grants Congress exclusive power to decide budget appropriations, while the executive’s role is to execute these allocations. However, Trump’s administration contends that a president can ignore Congressional decisions regarding spending if they are deemed wasteful.

This initiative is part of Trump’s broader strategy to consolidate executive power. Recently, he sought to pressure the Senate into recess to facilitate cabinet appointments without oversight. Although Republicans currently control the Senate and have not acquiesced, this maneuver reflects Trump’s intent to centralize decision-making.

Legal challenges are anticipated if Trump attempts to implement this budget plan, as experts warn it could fundamentally undermine Congress’s power. Eloise Pasachoff, a Georgetown Law professor, emphasized, “The president doesn’t have the authority to go into the budget bit by bit and pull out the stuff he doesn’t like.”

Trump’s stance appears to contradict a Nixon-era law that prohibits presidents from blocking appropriated spending based on policy disagreements. This view could further entangle Trump in the courts, particularly regarding the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

In recent op-eds, tech entrepreneur Elon Musk and former presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy announced plans to drastically cut federal expenditures, thereby aligning themselves with Trump’s budget strategy. They indicated confidence that the current Supreme Court could support Trump’s attempts at “impoundment.”

Veterans of Trump’s first administration, such as Russell Vought, are also rallying around this idea of expanded presidential control over budgeting. Following his reappointment as head of the Office of Management and Budget, Vought aims to dismantle what he terms the “Deep State.”

Concerns arise over Trump’s potential consolidation of budgetary control, a move reminiscent of tactics during his first term that have fueled fears of retaliation against opponents. Past actions included withholding military aid to Ukraine while pressuring foreign leaders to investigate political adversaries.

Trump’s historical claims regarding impoundment refer back to early presidential practices. However, many of these cases involve Congress explicitly granting discretionary authority over spending. In contrast, his predecessors have faced significant backlash when attempting to withhold funds without legislative approval, as seen during Nixon’s administration.

Despite the bold claims surrounding executive authority, the legal framework outlined in the 1974 law remains robust. The current debates surrounding budgeting and impoundment may reignite existing tensions between the executive and Congressional powers.

As Trump prepares to navigate these complexities, the implications of his approach could reverberate through the fabric of federal governance, challenging established norms and legal precedents.