President Trump claims historic authority to refuse Congressional spending, but Constitutional scholars and Supreme Court precedent say otherwise.

At a Glance

• The Trump administration is challenging Congress’ “power of the purse” by claiming presidential authority to refuse spending appropriated funds
• Trump and his team argue for the return of “impoundment” power, claiming the 1974 Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional
• Supreme Court rulings, including cases involving Presidents Nixon and Clinton, have consistently upheld Congress’ spending authority
• Legal experts, including Trump-appointed judges, generally reject presidential power to unilaterally block appropriated spending
• The debate raises fundamental questions about separation of powers in the American constitutional system

Constitutional Showdown Over Spending Authority

A constitutional battle is brewing in Washington as the Trump administration asserts the president’s right to refuse spending funds appropriated by Congress. This challenge to Congress’ constitutional “power of the purse” centers on the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which seeks to cut federal spending without legislative approval. The confrontation highlights fundamental questions about the separation of powers and executive authority that have simmered throughout American history but now threaten to boil over into a full constitutional crisis.

At the heart of this dispute is “impoundment” – the practice where a president withholds or declines to spend funds authorized by Congress. The Trump team argues this power was historically accepted until the Watergate era when Congress passed the 1974 Impoundment Control Act, which requires presidents to seek congressional approval before refusing to spend appropriated funds. Trump has been explicit about his position, calling the law unconstitutional and a violation of separation of powers.

This all depends on a simple question: did Congress fund PBS and NPR? If so, he can't do this. We really need a SCOTUS ruling making clear that impoundment or failing to deliver funds appropriated by Congress is illegal. https://t.co/HkgRrQryX9

— Brian Rosenwald (@brianros1) May 2, 2025

Historical Context and Supreme Court Precedent

The impoundment debate has deep historical roots. When President Nixon refused to spend funds appropriated for the Clean Water Act, the action led to the Supreme Court case Train v. City of New York, where justices unanimously ruled against presidential impoundment. Similarly, when President Clinton attempted to use line-item veto power to cancel specific spending provisions, the Supreme Court struck down the Line Item Veto Act in Clinton v. City of New York, further reinforcing Congress’ primacy in spending decisions.

“For 200 years under our system of government, it was undisputed that the president had the constitutional power to stop unnecessary spending through what is known as impoundment.”, said President Donald Trump.

Despite Trump’s claims about historical acceptance of impoundment, legal scholars note that the examples cited, such as Jefferson’s refusal to spend on gunboats, are often misinterpreted. In those cases, Congress had explicitly given the president discretion in spending decisions – a far cry from the unilateral authority now being claimed. Even Trump-appointed Justice Brett Kavanaugh has explicitly stated, “The President does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend.”

NEWS ALERT: Democrat @SenBlumenthal LIED in his questioning of OMB Director nominee @russvought when he claimed the Supreme Court had ruled in 1975 that the Impoundment Control Act (ICA) was constitutional. The Court did no such thing.

In fact, the Court SPECIFICALLY wrote in… pic.twitter.com/MIFthlzRim

— Mark Paoletta (@MarkPaoletta) January 18, 2025

Current Administration’s Approach

Russ Vought, a key figure in the Trump administration, has been particularly vocal about challenging the Impoundment Control Act. His Center for Renewing America promotes what critics call “radical Constitutionalism” that seeks to greatly expand executive power. The administration appears to be positioning itself for a court challenge to the 1974 law, potentially creating a constitutional showdown over the balance of power between Congress and the president.

The administration’s recent actions, including efforts to cut funding for public broadcasting, have brought these constitutional questions into sharp relief. Critics warn that such unilateral spending decisions undermine the constitutional system of checks and balances. Defenders argue that the president needs flexibility to control unnecessary spending. What’s clear is that this clash between executive authority and legislative prerogative touches on fundamental principles of American governance that date back to the founding of the republic.

Legal Pathways and Constitutional Implications

The Impoundment Control Act does provide legal avenues for a president who wishes to reduce spending. The president can request rescissions – cancellations of budget authority – but Congress must approve them within 45 days. The president can also temporarily defer spending for limited reasons, but cannot use this power to effectively cancel programs. These provisions were designed specifically to maintain congressional authority over spending while allowing reasonable executive flexibility.

“This disaster of a law is clearly unconstitutional — a blatant violation of the separation of powers.”, said Donald Trump.

The irony noted by some constitutional experts is that if the Impoundment Control Act were struck down, it wouldn’t necessarily give presidents more power to withhold funds. Given the Supreme Court’s rulings that appropriated funds must be spent, removing the act’s procedures could actually leave presidents with fewer legal options to control spending. This constitutional dispute ultimately centers on whether giving presidents broad authority to ignore spending laws would enhance governmental efficiency or fundamentally disrupt the constitutional balance of powers.