Opinion | Why Trump’s Unprecedented Attempt to Control Spending Was So Extreme
The funding freeze surpassed the initiatives undertaken by previous presidents in exercising executive authority.
TroibNews 
Every president explores the boundaries of their authority. However, no presidential attempt to secure power has been as sudden and shocking as President Donald Trump’s unexpected freeze on federal funds across the government.
The initial memo from Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which has since been withdrawn, lacked clarity in many areas — particularly the extent and duration of the “temporary” halt on “all federal financial assistance programs and supporting activities.” Most critically, the memo did not specify any constitutional or legislative authority for the president to pause any domestic grant programs, let alone all of them.
Implicitly, it suggests a striking contention: not only can the president freeze all funding during a review, but he may also have the authority to permanently eliminate items from appropriations statutes at will. This potential move threatens a radical reduction of Congress’ authority and jeopardizes the separation of American civil society from the political whims of the White House.
This goes far beyond what previous presidents have attempted during contentious displays of executive power.
Consider former President George W. Bush's “signing statements,” where he expressed his belief that certain provisions of laws overstepped his constitutional authority. Or former President Barack Obama’s significant executive orders granting immigration relief under DACA and DAPA. In both cases, the presidents focused on specific legal questions rather than launching broad attacks on federal operations. Additionally, signing statements did not inherently prevent the enforcement of laws, and Obama’s immigration relief stemmed from an interpretation of federal law — not a bold decision to disregard it.
There’s an astonishing disconnect between the rationale for the funding “pause” and its implications. The OMB memo references the unrealized “Green New Deal” and a “Marxist” agenda, which appears to be a fabrication of the MAGA mindset. Even with a generous reading, it is hard to believe that billions of federal dollars allocated to states, hospitals, social services, law enforcement, and educational institutions could plausibly spark such concerns.
Neither the signing statements nor the executive orders from earlier administrations exhibit this reckless disregard for federal laws. None suggest that the president possesses the unfettered authority to target and eliminate, for any reason or none, a congressionally mandated fund.
In lieu of citing legal authority for these claims, the OMB memo refers to Trump’s “mandate.” This term serves as a conveniently vague term for the White House and masks the lack of legitimate constitutional or statutory authority for this power grab. It’s unsurprising that a judge has blocked the funding freeze, at least temporarily. Following significant backlash, the administration rescinded the memo, shelving the idea for the time being.
The Constitution clearly states that Congress must authorize appropriations, and the president is required to “take Care” that these laws are “faithfully executed.” There is no constitutional basis for the president to claim the authority to impound funds as suggested in the OMB memo. In 1975, the Supreme Court dismissed former President Richard Nixon’s assertion that he could spend less than what Congress had appropriated. If the president had such a constitutional power to impound, that ruling would likely have had a different outcome.
In reaction to Nixon’s impoundments, Congress passed the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which specifies the conditions under which impoundment of funds is lawful. None of these conditions apply here; all of them require the president to notify Congress explicitly and immediately. The OMB memo violates the provisions of the 1974 law by claiming a power that Congress did not grant.
In fact, the Supreme Court has tightened the constitutional restrictions on such unilateral claims of executive authority not grounded in statutory law. Under the guidance of Justice Neil Gorsuch, it has emphasized the necessity of clear congressional authority for any exercised delegated power, including regulatory powers. The OMB memo undermines those decisions by allowing the president to manage financial resources in ways not permitted with regulatory measures.
While there are some instances of past impoundment, these are generally confined to foreign affairs and national security. For instance, in 1803, Thomas Jefferson withheld funds for 15 gunboats, fearing that doing so would disrupt sensitive negotiations with Napoleonic France. The scope of unilateral presidential authority in foreign affairs cannot constitutionally be indiscriminately applied to all domestic expenditures.
Past presidents have faced conflicts between legislative directives and Congress’ failure to fund the execution of those directives. In such cases, presidents are left with difficult choices between conflicting statutory commands. Courts usually do not intervene in these conflicts. However, in a notable 2012 case involving competing mandates, the Supreme Court rejected the executive’s claim to withhold promised funds.
The rare instances of impoundment serve as cautionary tales, not endorsements. In 1860, for example, President James Buchanan withheld funds for Illinois post offices to retaliate against the state’s representatives, highlighting the risks of abusing the impoundment power rather than its constitutional legitimacy.
This absence of precedent reflects the truth: the impoundment authority proposed by Trump’s White House would undermine Congress’ constitutional powers.
Much like the line-item veto nullified by the Supreme Court in 1998, the asserted impoundment authority effectively allows the president to selectively alter duly enacted laws. This notion of nonenforcement should raise eyebrows among conservatives. After all, red states like Texas, supported by Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller, once criticized the Biden administration for circumventing federal immigration laws through selective nonenforcement.
The implications of this claimed impoundment power extend beyond Congress’s authority. Consider how it could be weaponized against blue states and civil society.
For instance, if California faced serious wildfires before the 2026 midterms, might the White House freeze relief funds before the election and selectively allocate money to only Republican-leaning districts? Or could it cut off funding from every hospital offering reproductive care and abortions, or from universities conducting student voter outreach?
While these scenarios may sound far-fetched, one only needs to reflect on the partisan purges within the Justice Department and other agencies, alongside the selective withdrawal of secret service protection from Trump’s perceived adversaries.
Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that sometimes a wolf approaches in sheep's clothing and sometimes “comes as a wolf.” Right now, there is a wolf at the door of the Constitution, and it must be recognized for what it truly represents.
Rohan Mehta contributed to this report for TROIB News
The initial memo from Matthew Vaeth, the acting director of the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which has since been withdrawn, lacked clarity in many areas — particularly the extent and duration of the “temporary” halt on “all federal financial assistance programs and supporting activities.” Most critically, the memo did not specify any constitutional or legislative authority for the president to pause any domestic grant programs, let alone all of them.
Implicitly, it suggests a striking contention: not only can the president freeze all funding during a review, but he may also have the authority to permanently eliminate items from appropriations statutes at will. This potential move threatens a radical reduction of Congress’ authority and jeopardizes the separation of American civil society from the political whims of the White House.
This goes far beyond what previous presidents have attempted during contentious displays of executive power.
Consider former President George W. Bush's “signing statements,” where he expressed his belief that certain provisions of laws overstepped his constitutional authority. Or former President Barack Obama’s significant executive orders granting immigration relief under DACA and DAPA. In both cases, the presidents focused on specific legal questions rather than launching broad attacks on federal operations. Additionally, signing statements did not inherently prevent the enforcement of laws, and Obama’s immigration relief stemmed from an interpretation of federal law — not a bold decision to disregard it.
There’s an astonishing disconnect between the rationale for the funding “pause” and its implications. The OMB memo references the unrealized “Green New Deal” and a “Marxist” agenda, which appears to be a fabrication of the MAGA mindset. Even with a generous reading, it is hard to believe that billions of federal dollars allocated to states, hospitals, social services, law enforcement, and educational institutions could plausibly spark such concerns.
Neither the signing statements nor the executive orders from earlier administrations exhibit this reckless disregard for federal laws. None suggest that the president possesses the unfettered authority to target and eliminate, for any reason or none, a congressionally mandated fund.
In lieu of citing legal authority for these claims, the OMB memo refers to Trump’s “mandate.” This term serves as a conveniently vague term for the White House and masks the lack of legitimate constitutional or statutory authority for this power grab. It’s unsurprising that a judge has blocked the funding freeze, at least temporarily. Following significant backlash, the administration rescinded the memo, shelving the idea for the time being.
The Constitution clearly states that Congress must authorize appropriations, and the president is required to “take Care” that these laws are “faithfully executed.” There is no constitutional basis for the president to claim the authority to impound funds as suggested in the OMB memo. In 1975, the Supreme Court dismissed former President Richard Nixon’s assertion that he could spend less than what Congress had appropriated. If the president had such a constitutional power to impound, that ruling would likely have had a different outcome.
In reaction to Nixon’s impoundments, Congress passed the 1974 Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act, which specifies the conditions under which impoundment of funds is lawful. None of these conditions apply here; all of them require the president to notify Congress explicitly and immediately. The OMB memo violates the provisions of the 1974 law by claiming a power that Congress did not grant.
In fact, the Supreme Court has tightened the constitutional restrictions on such unilateral claims of executive authority not grounded in statutory law. Under the guidance of Justice Neil Gorsuch, it has emphasized the necessity of clear congressional authority for any exercised delegated power, including regulatory powers. The OMB memo undermines those decisions by allowing the president to manage financial resources in ways not permitted with regulatory measures.
While there are some instances of past impoundment, these are generally confined to foreign affairs and national security. For instance, in 1803, Thomas Jefferson withheld funds for 15 gunboats, fearing that doing so would disrupt sensitive negotiations with Napoleonic France. The scope of unilateral presidential authority in foreign affairs cannot constitutionally be indiscriminately applied to all domestic expenditures.
Past presidents have faced conflicts between legislative directives and Congress’ failure to fund the execution of those directives. In such cases, presidents are left with difficult choices between conflicting statutory commands. Courts usually do not intervene in these conflicts. However, in a notable 2012 case involving competing mandates, the Supreme Court rejected the executive’s claim to withhold promised funds.
The rare instances of impoundment serve as cautionary tales, not endorsements. In 1860, for example, President James Buchanan withheld funds for Illinois post offices to retaliate against the state’s representatives, highlighting the risks of abusing the impoundment power rather than its constitutional legitimacy.
This absence of precedent reflects the truth: the impoundment authority proposed by Trump’s White House would undermine Congress’ constitutional powers.
Much like the line-item veto nullified by the Supreme Court in 1998, the asserted impoundment authority effectively allows the president to selectively alter duly enacted laws. This notion of nonenforcement should raise eyebrows among conservatives. After all, red states like Texas, supported by Trump’s adviser Stephen Miller, once criticized the Biden administration for circumventing federal immigration laws through selective nonenforcement.
The implications of this claimed impoundment power extend beyond Congress’s authority. Consider how it could be weaponized against blue states and civil society.
For instance, if California faced serious wildfires before the 2026 midterms, might the White House freeze relief funds before the election and selectively allocate money to only Republican-leaning districts? Or could it cut off funding from every hospital offering reproductive care and abortions, or from universities conducting student voter outreach?
While these scenarios may sound far-fetched, one only needs to reflect on the partisan purges within the Justice Department and other agencies, alongside the selective withdrawal of secret service protection from Trump’s perceived adversaries.
Justice Antonin Scalia remarked that sometimes a wolf approaches in sheep's clothing and sometimes “comes as a wolf.” Right now, there is a wolf at the door of the Constitution, and it must be recognized for what it truly represents.
Rohan Mehta contributed to this report for TROIB News
