For centuries, English kings waged wars on the European continent without parliamentary approval, funding armies from their own coffers. This history drove America's Founders to vest the power of the purse in Congress, not the president. Today, that foundational principle faces its most direct challenge from a White House determined to bypass lawmakers and implement its own spending priorities.
President Trump is asserting the authority to unilaterally cut federal programs even after Congress has explicitly rejected those cuts. This maneuver, a direct assault on the separation of powers, echoes President Richard Nixon’s impoundment attempts, which the Supreme Court unanimously struck down. Undeterred, Trump and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought are pressing forward.
The budget process is clear: the president submits a request, but only Congress can enact appropriations. This year, as in previous years, lawmakers approved some of Trump’s proposed cuts and rejected others—such as the elimination of the Community Development Financial Institutions program and a $60 million reduction for the Smithsonian. But instead of implementing the laws he signed, Trump has directed agencies to block the funds Congress provided.
The OMB used a technical tool called an “apportionment” to freeze $289 million from the Community Development Financial Institutions program and forbade the Smithsonian from spending any money beyond the president’s request. These actions violate the Impoundment Control Act, which lacks criminal penalties but has been reinforced by annual appropriations bills that explicitly prohibit using funds to implement cuts Congress has not enacted.
Last year, the administration could argue it was cutting spending from the Biden era—a weak legal defense but a rhetorical one. This year, the cuts are directly contrary to Congress’s will, and the legal prohibitions apply. The Government Accountability Office has repeatedly ruled that even small improper expenditures are illegal under the Anti-Deficiency Act, which carries criminal penalties.
Congressional leaders concerned about preserving the constitutional balance should warn Vought and agency officials to reverse these lawless actions or face consequences. If that fails, criminal referrals to the Department of Justice are possible, within the five-year statute of limitations. As the Supreme Court insists on honoring the Constitution’s original meaning, the other branches too must respect that the power of the purse belongs to the people’s representatives, not to unaccountable executive officials.
This dispute unfolds amid broader tensions over executive authority. For instance, Trump is pushing to expand a Russia sanctions bill to include Iran, a move that could further test congressional prerogatives. Meanwhile, Trump continues to revive election interference claims, ignoring the reality of his 2020 defeat. These actions, combined with the impoundment fight, signal a presidency increasingly willing to challenge constitutional limits.
America is not a monarchy. The Founders granted Congress the power of the purse to prevent abuses like those that occurred when kings controlled both the army and the treasury. As the executive branch tests those limits, the responsibility falls on Congress to defend its constitutional role.
