Planet Money: Can the President Override Congress on Spending? Episode Released: February 19, 2025
In this compelling episode of Planet Money, host Sarah Gonzalez delves into a pressing constitutional debate: Does the President have the authority to override Congress on federal spending? Through an exploration of historical precedents, legal frameworks, and contemporary political maneuvers, the episode unpacks the complexities surrounding presidential impoundment power and its implications for the U.S. economy and governance.
Introduction to the Federal Spending Clash
Sarah Gonzalez opens the discussion by highlighting President Donald Trump's recent attempts to dismantle the Agency for International Development (USAID) and freeze billions in federal grants. These funds support a wide array of state-level initiatives, including purchasing new school buses, funding health benefits for childcare workers, wildfire prevention, and medical research. The legal contention revolves around whether the President can legally spend less than the amount appropriated by Congress, a debate rooted in the Constitution’s allocation of the “power of the purse” to Congress.
"The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress has the power of the purse. Congress decides how much money the US spends." – Sarah Gonzalez [00:17]
Understanding Impoundment and the Impoundment Control Act
The central theme of the episode is impoundment—the President’s ability to withhold or delay the spending of funds appropriated by Congress. Sarah Gonzalez explains the Impoundment Control Act of 1974, which was enacted in response to President Nixon's extensive use of impoundment to subvert congressional spending decisions.
"The Impoundment Control Act… controls how the president can impound funds. You can impound funds, right? It's not that impoundment is not allowed, it's allowed, but in this controlled way." – Sarah Gonzalez [13:00]
Historical Context and Precedents
Law Professor Zachary Price from the University of California, College of Law, provides historical insights, referencing instances of impoundment dating back to President Thomas Jefferson in 1803. Jefferson's decision not to fully utilize funds allocated for gunboats in the Mississippi River demonstrated early executive discretion in spending.
"If Congress appropriated more funding than was needed to run the government, the president could refuse to waste the extra funds and instead return the money to the general treasury." – Zachary Price [04:34]
However, Sarah Gonzalez notes that such historical impoundments were typically within the bounds of the law, often involving scenarios where the appropriated amount was an upper limit rather than a mandate.
"The law said Thomas Jefferson could, order quote, a number not exceeding 15 gunboats using, quote, a sum not exceeding $50,000. So baked into the law, it was always optional." – Sarah Gonzalez [08:58]
Trump’s Challenge to Established Norms
The episode transitions to present-day actions, where President Trump has attempted to bypass the Impoundment Control Act by freezing funds without submitting a proposal to Congress—a move that legal experts argue is unconstitutional. Unlike previous presidents who engaged in a back-and-forth with Congress regarding spending priorities, Trump’s approach mirrors Nixon’s broader and more systematic use of impoundment as a policy tool.
"This was more like what Nixon tried to do, using impoundments as a broader policy tool, withholding money for policies he disagreed with." – Sarah Gonzalez [15:08]
Legal Repercussions and Judicial Responses
The episode highlights the judicial pushback against Trump's actions. Multiple judges, including those appointed by Trump himself, have blocked the funding freezes and ordered the administration to release the funds. For instance, a judge in Rhode Island condemned the administration for not complying with court orders to release funds.
"The judge in Rhode Island found that they had violated his order in numerous respects and has issued a supplemental order admonishing them to start complying right away." – Sarah Gonzalez [22:19]
Despite these rulings, reports indicate that significant portions of funding remain inaccessible, leading to a situation where state agencies and nonprofits are unable to utilize granted funds vital for their operations.
"State agencies in Pennsylvania... have not been able to access $2.1 billion in grant funding that was suspended or restricted." – Sarah Gonzalez [22:40]
Constitutional Crisis and Expert Opinions
David Super, a law and economics professor at Georgetown, voices his concerns about the constitutional implications of Trump's actions, describing them as a potential constitutional crisis.
"So, as a teacher, I couldn't be more grateful for their timing with this. As a lawyer and a citizen, I'm troubled by it." – David Super [19:37]
Super and other legal scholars argue that the Constitution not only provides Congress with the authority to set spending ceilings but also enforces spending floors, ensuring that funds appropriated by Congress must be spent unless properly rescinded through established processes.
"The floor's there in the laws that say you must spend this money, and in the Constitution, it says you must take care that the laws be faithfully executed." – Sarah Gonzalez [20:07]
Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, appointed by Trump, reiterated that the President does not possess unilateral authority to refuse spending, aligning with longstanding judicial interpretations that reinforce congressional supremacy in fiscal matters.
"Even the president does not have unilateral authority to refuse to spend." – Brett Kavanaugh [implied via David Super] [20:22]
Trump’s Legal Arguments and Court Decisions
Trump’s legal team contends that historical impoundment practices do not equate to outright spending refusal and that Presidents have inherent powers to manage federal funds. They argue that the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional and that existing court rulings are too narrow to address the broader claims of executive financial autonomy.
"They say that even that one Nixon ruling was more specific to the particulars of Nixon's case." – David Super [20:22]
Despite these arguments, courts have consistently upheld the premise that executive actions to withhold appropriated funds without congressional consent are unconstitutional. Judges have mandated the release of frozen funds, although compliance remains inconsistent.
Ongoing Legal Battles and Current Status
As of the episode's release, several lawsuits are active, with states and nonprofits seeking restitution for withheld funds. The administration’s partial compliance, such as rescinding a memo declaring the funding freeze, has done little to alleviate the blockage, leading to continued legal contention and financial uncertainty for affected entities.
"President Trump is not alone in exercising this authority. George H.W. Bush utilized this authority. President Clinton, President Reagan did too. So there is precedent." – Rachel Snyderman [14:57]
However, Trump’s deviation from the established impoundment processes has ignited fears of e eroding the checks and balances integral to the U.S. financial and political systems.
Conclusion: A Constitutional Crossroads
The episode concludes with a somber reflection on the potential constitutional ramifications of the current administration's actions. David Super characterizes the situation as edging towards a constitutional crisis, emphasizing the critical need for adherence to established legal frameworks to maintain the balance of power between Congress and the Presidency.
"These actions for him rise to the level of a constitutional crisis." – David Super [23:26]
Ultimately, the episode underscores the fragility of constitutional norms in the face of executive overreach and the enduring struggle to define the limits of presidential power in fiscal governance.
Key Takeaways
- Impoundment Power: Historically, Presidents could withhold funds within the limits set by Congress, primarily when the appropriated amount was an upper ceiling rather than a mandated expenditure.
- Legal Framework: The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established processes to control presidential impoundment, requiring coordination with Congress.
- Current Conflict: President Trump's attempt to freeze funds without congressional approval challenges established legal norms, prompting judicial intervention and legal debates.
- Constitutional Implications: Legal experts warn that such actions could lead to a constitutional crisis, undermining the separation of powers and congressional authority over federal spending.
Notable Quotes
- "The Constitution is pretty clear that Congress has the power of the purse. Congress decides how much money the US spends." – Sarah Gonzalez [00:17]
- "If Congress appropriated more funding than was needed to run the government, the president could refuse to waste the extra funds and instead return the money to the general treasury." – Zachary Price [04:34]
- "These actions for him rise to the level of a constitutional crisis." – David Super [23:26]
For more in-depth analysis and updates on this evolving story, visit the Planet Money website and subscribe to their newsletter.