Trump’s Attempt to Withhold Federal Funding Sparks Constitutional Crisis
A legal battle over Congress's power to control federal spending could soon reach the Supreme Court.
WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s effort to withhold federal funding is igniting a contentious legal fight centered on the constitutional principle that Congress holds the exclusive authority to decide how taxpayer money is spent.
This dispute, reminiscent of President Donald Trump’s earlier executive order on birthright citizenship, has already prompted immediate litigation and could rapidly escalate to the Supreme Court.
A lawsuit filed by nonprofit organizations has led to a federal judge temporarily blocking the administration’s plan. The showdown began with a memo issued by Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) on Monday, which ordered a freeze on spending related to federal programs and aid.
The administration claims the freeze is necessary to evaluate whether these programs align with President Trump’s political priorities, even though they were previously approved by Congress and signed into law. A follow-up memo issued by OMB on Tuesday clarified that the freeze did not constitute an outright funding freeze and argued that it was not subject to the Impoundment Control Act.
Sam Bagenstos, who served as OMB general counsel under President Joe Biden, remarked that the Trump administration seems eager to take this case to the Supreme Court, possibly anticipating a favorable ruling. "It seems clear that the Trump administration is aching to get this issue to the Supreme Court," he said, noting the administration's belief that it has a favorable court to argue its case.
The Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to levy taxes and determine federal spending, which is commonly referred to as "the power of the purse." This power is a cornerstone of the separation of powers, preventing the president from dictating spending decisions.
"If you take it away, you’ve got a Congress that really can’t do much of anything in the face of an intransigent president," said Josh Chafetz, a Georgetown University Law Center professor.
In addition to the lawsuit filed by nonprofit groups, over 20 Democratic attorneys general have filed their own suit to block the Trump administration's plan. New York Attorney General Letitia James condemned the move as an overreach of presidential power, stating, “Not only does this administration’s new policy put people at risk, but it is plainly unconstitutional. The president does not get to decide which laws to enforce and for whom.”
Further lawsuits are anticipated, particularly targeting the Impoundment Control Act, a 1974 law regulating the president’s ability to withhold spending. This law was enacted after President Richard Nixon attempted to block funding for programs he opposed. Under the law, the president can temporarily withhold funds but must notify Congress, and the decision cannot be based on policy preferences. The president can also request that Congress rescind appropriations.
Russ Vought, Trump’s nominee to lead OMB, has previously expressed the view that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, hinting at a possible legal defense. Mark Paoletta, Trump's OMB general counsel, co-wrote an article advocating for expansive presidential powers, including the authority to withhold funding.
While some constitutional scholars may support this argument, others point to the president's obligation to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” which could limit the scope of his ability to unilaterally withhold funds.
Jed Shugerman, a professor at Boston University School of Law, emphasized that while there have been past disputes over spending, the Trump administration’s broad approach to impounding funds is unprecedented. “What’s abnormal is the flagrant and across-the-board withholding of allocated funds,” he said.
Critics argue that the president’s actions represent an unconstitutional power grab. Ilya Somin, a professor at George Mason University, called it a "dangerous" overreach that undermines the separation of powers.
The case could eventually reach the Supreme Court, which holds a 6-3 conservative majority, including three justices appointed by Trump. However, legal experts caution that the administration’s position may not be as strong as it seems. Precedents from past cases, including a 1974 decision involving the Nixon administration and a 1998 ruling on line-item vetoes, have placed limits on presidential power over federal spending.
Bagenstos cautioned that the administration may be “overestimating” its chances with the Supreme Court. “It’s more likely the court will uphold the Impoundment Control Act,” he said, though the outcome remains uncertain.